abstract - built environment | built environment · although they were developed on the fringe of...

ABSTRACT

Although typically associated with the provision of low-cost holiday accommodation, for over 30 years caravan parks have provided an unrecognised source of housing to the lower end of the market. Due to their often dilapidated condition and the demographic profile of their residents, caravan parks are stereotyped as enclaves of despondency and residents are often referred to as ‘trailer trash’, an expression which originated in America. However, those living permanently in caravan parks often find that the unique living environment, based on solidarity and companionship, assists in overcoming personal hardship. As urban land prices in Australia have increased exponentially and the footprints of its capital cities continue to grow, large parcels of under-developed land accommodating caravan parks have become ‘land banks’ ripe for redevelopment. While it is the park owner’s prerogative to maximise profit, individuals and families are being displaced with little or no compensation, to make way for more lucrative land uses. With deficiencies in the public housing system and the failure of the housing market to provide suitable low-cost accommodation, caravan park residents face an uncertain future, even homelessness. This trend seems certain to continue with a lack of government responsibility at policy level providing for the future housing needs of this vulnerable group.

Abstract

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would have been very difficult to complete had it not been for a number of people. In particular, I would like to thank the following people: My parents, Jill and Peter. I am very grateful for the many opportunities they have given me throughout my life and for the way in which they have supported me over the past six years at UNSW. My thesis advisor Dr Nancy Marshall, for her guidance, assistance, patience and encouragement over the last few months. She kept me focused, even during periods of low motivation! John Mackenzie from Parks and Village Service, for helping me above and beyond expectation. John sacrificed a lot of his own time to assist me and I am extremely grateful for this. Appreciation also needs to be given to Rhonda Burton for inviting me into her home during a difficult time and for providing me with a unique insight into life at Casa Paloma Caravan Park. Anders Alexander, for his ‘technical assistance’ in relation to the design elements of this thesis. I know I was demanding at times so thank you for assisting me with all my requests. Finally I would like to thank Tone for his support, both practical and emotional; and my friends for their continual encouragement. I have been very fortunate to have had this support network.

Acknowledgements

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………………….6 Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………7 1.1 Problem Setting………………………………………………………………………………...............8 1.2 Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………………………….9 1.3 Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………………………….11 1.4 Research Methodology…………………………………………………………………………….....12 1.5 Thesis Structure…………………………………………………………………………………….....14 1.6 Research Limitations………………………………………………………………………………….16 1.7 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………….....17

Chapter Two: The Housing Role of Caravan Parks……………………………………………….…...18 2.1 Background to the Caravan Park Industry in Australia…………………………………………….18 2.2 Caravan Parks: Housing the ‘Marginally Homeless’………………………………………………20 2.3 The Extent of Caravan Park Living…………………………………………………………………..22 2.4 A Profile of Permanent Caravan Park Residents……………………………………………….….24 2.5 Problems Associated with Caravan Park Residency……………………………………………...27 2.6 Caravan Parks as a Positive Housing Experience………………………………………………...33 2.7 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………….35 Chapter Three: The Factors Influencing the use of Caravan Parks for Permanent Residency...36 3.1 The Failure of Government Intervention…………………………………………………………....36 3.2 Market Failure and Declining Housing Affordability…………………………………………….….38 3.3 Lack of Alternative Accommodation………………………………………………………………...43 3.4 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………........45

Table of Contents

3

Chapter Four: The Demise of Urban Caravan Parks…………………………………………………...47 4.1 The Extent of Caravan Park Closure………………………………………………………………..47 4.2 The Reasons for the Closure of Urban Caravan Parks……………………………………….…..54 4.3 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………….…59 Chapter Five: The Implications of Caravan Park Closure……………………………………………...60 5.1 The Permanent Loss of Low-Cost Housing Stock………………………………………………….60 5.2 Social Impacts………………………………………………………………………………………….61 5.3 Insufficient Compensation…………………………………………………………………………….64 5.4 Losing the ‘Right’ to Housing……………………………………………………………….………...66 5.5 The Prerogative of the Developer……………………………………………………………………67 5.6 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………….….69 Chapter Six: Future Considerations……………………………………………………………………….71 6.1 The Future of Urban Caravan Parks………………………………………………………………...71 6.2 The Role of Government……………………………………………………………………………...73 6.3 The Role of Industry Stakeholders…………………………………………………………………..79 6.4 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………….79 Chapter Seven: Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….81 7.1 General Overview………………………………………………………………………………….…..81 7.2 Research Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………….….….82 7.3 Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………………………………………...85 7.4 Final Remarks……………………………………………………………………………………….…85 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………………………87 Appendices A Glossary ………………………………………………………………………………………………..97 B Faculty of the Built Environment Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel Consent………….101

Table of Contents

4

L IST OF F IGURES

Figure 2.1: Caravan Parks ‘Fill the Gap’ Between Mainstream Housing and Homelessness………..21

Figure 2.2: Percentage of Individuals in Caravan Parks (2001)…………………………………………25

Figure 2.3: Employment Rate (2001) ……………………………………………………………………...26

Figure 2.4: Occupation Comparison (2001) ………………………………………………………………26

Figure 2.5: Median Weekly Household Income (2001) ……………………………………………………..27

Figure 2.6: Households in Rental Stress (1996) ………………………………………………………………27

Figure 2.7: The Status of Legislation Relating to Caravan Park Tenancy……………………………..32

Figure 3.1: Factors Contributing to the Increase in House Prices………………………………………41

Figure 3.2: Weekly Wage versus Median House Price in Australia (1980 – 2003)…………………...43

Figure 4.1: The Approximate Loss of Caravan Parks in Australia (1987 – 2006)…………………….48

Figure 4.2: The Median House Price in Australia (1993 – 2006)……………………………………….49

Figure 4.3: The Status of Caravan Parks in Sydney (2001 – 2006)……………………………………52

Figure 4.4: Caravan Park Closures in Sydney (2001 – 2006)…………………………………………..53

Figure 5.1: The Estimated Value of Land: Before and After Re-development………………………..68

List of Figures

5

L IST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics ACSS Australian Council of Social Services CSHA Commonwealth State Housing Agreement CRA Commonwealth Rent Assistance ECEI Equilibrium Community Ecology Incorporated EPAA Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended HBU Highest and Best Use NAP National Action Plan for human rights NRMA National Road and Motorist Association NSW New South Wales REIA Real Estate Institute of Australia SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy UK United Kingdom USA United States of America

List of Abbreviations

6

C H A P T E R O N E :

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Caravan parks are traditionally associated with short-term tourist accommodation in coastal areas, although they were developed on the fringe of capital cities to provide temporary housing for factory workers and transients. It was not until the latter half of the 1970s, when this form of living was a topical subject in the United States and caravan sales increased in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2000), that they began to attract the attention of Australian social policy analysts. Since that time they have evolved significantly from their intended use and now make a significant contribution to the supply of affordable housing stock. The recent spate of caravan parks closures in capital cites around the country has resulted in a reduction of a source of housing which is depended upon by a growing number of low-income earners. In a market where the supply of low-cost housing is already under significant pressure due to disproportionate changes to average income and median land price, the value of caravan parks cannot be underestimated. Policy needs to be established by government which aims to protect the future of existing residents as well as the low-cost housing stock lost as a result of redevelopment. The wide range of dwelling types that now exist within caravan parks have made it difficult for industry commentators to establish one definition for this land use. As explained by Wensing et al. “…there is no single way of classifying caravan parks. There are several spectrums upon which they can be gauged and evaluated, depending on the purpose and the perspective” (2003, 7). For the purpose of this research a caravan park (also referred to as a ‘residential park’ in recent discourse) is defined as being land on which structures that are not attached to land and which are designed to be moved from one position to another, have been, or are to be placed. These structures may not be limited to traditional caravans and can also include mobile homes, contemporary manufactured dwellings, cabins and other forms of short or long stay accommodation. The equivalent land use in the United States of America (USA) is a trailer park, while in the United Kingdom (UK) caravan parks are referred to as residential or mobile home parks. Another term used throughout this thesis is ‘urban’, which refers to any area that is located within, or which is characteristic of, a capital city.

Chapter One: Introduction

7

This introductory component of the thesis summarises the purpose, scope and methodology used in relation to the research. A background to the problem and a summary of the theoretical foundation is provided in this section, as is the research statement. This outlines the intent of the project and establishes the parameters by way of research objectives, methodology and the range of data sources utilised. The final component of the introduction is a summary of the paper’s structure and content, which provides a brief description of the content of each of the chapters. 1.1 PROBLEM SETTING

Caravan parks in urban areas were originally developed during the 1940s as parcels of land providing low-cost and short-term accommodation, usually for tourists. Their proximity to idyllic natural features meant that they were considered to be ideal for this function and in many cases the parcels of land were purposefully zoned to accommodate this use (Mackenzie 2006 pers. comm.). However, despite their distinct function as temporary accommodation resource, caravan parks were never used exclusively for the purpose of short-term visitors. Local governments, businesses and anecdotal records indicate that they were occupied to varying degrees by long-term and permanent residents from the outset, meaning they essentially contravened all relevant statutory controls. It was not until the mid-1980s, when the prohibition placed on long-term residents was removed, that caravan parks were legitimised by way of data classification methods and recognition by the ABS (Wensing et al. 2003). At approximately the same time, caravan parks became increasingly acknowledged in housing stock discourse and were legitimised by a greater level of social acceptance. They now exist as an integral component of the city housing landscape both in Australia and overseas, providing a critical source of accommodation located at the intersection of affordable housing and homelessness (Tsorbaris 2001), and making available scarce opportunities for both private rental and home ownership. It has been argued (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.; Miers 2004; O’Dwyer 2005; Reed and Greenhalgh 2003; Wensing et al. 2003) that the failure of the housing market and the government to adequately provide housing to the population, regardless of income, has significantly contributed to the occupation of caravan parks by long-term residents. Population growth has led to a greater demand for land and housing generally and as a result housing affordability is declining, most notably in metropolitan areas. It is therefore concerning that the viability of caravan parks is under threat due to pressure from developers aiming to capitalise on rising land prices. Land which was once on the outer fringe of a


8

sprawling city such as Sydney is now considered middle-ring suburbia, meaning large parcels of relatively undeveloped land have essentially become ‘land banks’, with decrepit and marginally profitable caravan parks being particularly susceptible to closure for more profitable uses. This trend has exposed weaknesses in government policy relating to the protection of low-cost housing and will likely place further stress on existing low-cost housing options. Until approximately four years ago caravan parks figured poorly in housing research, however as this rend has gained momentum there has been an increased level of discourse published. The nature and extent of the role played by caravan parks in terms of the provision of affordable housing in Australia has been discussed (for example by Greenhalgh 2002; and Greenhalgh and Connor 2003; Miers 2004; Wensing et al. 2003;), however, as these were published prior to recent significant changes in the industry they do not provide details on the implications of closures since that time. In NSW the most comprehensive review of the loss of caravan park accommodation is a report by the Parks and Village Service titled “No Place for Home” (Connor and Ferns 2002). Given recent developments, an update is timely and there is a clear need for further study. 1.2 THEORTICAL FRAMEWORK

This thesis has a strong grounding in existing research relating to the use of caravan parks as a form of affordable housing. The research seeks to make a contribution to the small body of existing literature relating to the very recent phenomenon of the closure of caravan parks in urban areas and is based on a number of key concepts: Housing Affordability

Housing is regarded as being affordable by academics and policy makers when its cost is reasonable in relation to household income. It is typically referred to as being the capacity to obtain sound housing without sacrificing more than 30 percent of a combined household income for rent or mortgage repayments (Beer 2004; Berry and Hall 2002; Randolph and Holloway 2002). Housing affordability is an extremely contentious issue which has occupied a significant amount of urban policy and housing discussion over a period of approximately 20 years. The failure of the market and government intervention to provide appropriate housing for those in need means that an alternative form of low-cost accommodation, such as caravan parks, is relied upon. Although they are typically regarded as a less-


9

than-ideal ‘solution’ to the shortage of affordable housing, the fact remains that caravan parks are occupied by an increasing number of Australians. For this reason it is very concerning that they are susceptible to closure for redevelopment, leaving their residents with literally ‘no place to go’. The Highest and ‘Best’ Use Paradigm

This research is fundamentally concerned with the issues and consequences of market-led land use change that occurs in association with the growth and change of cities. Accordingly, the highest and best use (HBU) paradigm is central to this research, as it is the key concept supporting economic land use and value decisions. According to Harvey and Jowsey (2000), development is necessary to facilitate the efficient use of land resources and it typically occurs to ensure the most profitable use of land. Due to their physical and location attributes, caravan parks are often regarded as under-capitalised parcels of land in rapidly growing cities and this theory will be explored further in this thesis. The HBU theory is contentious as it focuses on profitability and fails to consider the consequential social costs associated with the development of land. Despite the existence of statutory assessment criteria which requires the consideration of the social impact of developments, consents to develop caravan parks for economic benefit indicate that social considerations are less significant than desire for profit. This has been demonstrated in a number of sites in Sydney where the housing needs of long-term caravan park residents appear to have been disregarded due to the proposed development’s compliance with numerical and zoning controls. The research provided in this thesis relates to various urban processes such as growth and change, and draws upon the suggestions for future research outlined by Reed and Greenhalgh (2003), who questioned the economic viability of caravan park sites. These authors apply the HBU theory to caravan parks and explain that the balance between a park’s worth as an on-going business and its land value in monetary terms is critical to continued supply, as the highest and best legal land use has to be continually re-evaluated. In Australia and indeed internationally, it has been demonstrated that caravan parks in urban areas are rarely the most lucrative land use, particularly in the case of older parks where operating costs tend to exceed revenue. Consequently, they are sold or redeveloped and the land is put to a more profitable use.


10

The ‘Right’ to Housing

In industrialised democracies such as Australia, the ideologies surrounding access to housing focus on the belief that all individuals, regardless of their earning capacity, deserve the right to adequate, appropriate and permanent accommodation. Most Australians have the (albeit sometimes limited) capacity enabling them a degree of housing choice, however there is a presumption that government intervention occurs to assist those who are unable to access housing solely by personal means. Rising land prices and income inequalities have resulted in a portion of the population being unable to access this basic human; however due to lack of policy attention and funding, the government is struggling to fulfil the needs of all dependants to an acceptable standard. King (2003) explains that the provision of affordable housing by using a comparative mechanism determines those who are most in need of assistance. He questions whether existing policy relating to affordable housing provision and rent assistance is optimal, and whether the outcome of such a system is merely arbitrary. “Housing is clearly of fundamental importance to human importance to human flourishing, yet, in political terms, it fails to register on the popular consciousness in the same manner as other welfare services…”(King 2003, 2). These ideas will be explored later in this paper. 1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

If market forces are relied upon, urban caravan parks will not have a future in the city landscape. However, as they provide a valued source of permanent housing at the lower end of the market, the problem needs to be addressed and government policy implemented to ensure the implications of caravan park closure for existing long-term residents are minimised. This thesis documents the role of caravan parks in Australian cities over a period of approximately 70 years. It details the growing phenomenon of permanent residency in these establishments and explains why many are now under threat of closure. Caravan parks are seemingly no longer a viable land use, and a prediction of their future in metropolitan areas and more specifically Sydney will be discussed. Also provided in this thesis are recommendations for policy responses at from the three tiers of government. These aim to address the displacement phenomenon and document the failure of the public and private sectors to find a comparable accommodation solution for the residents of caravan parks earmarked for closure. It is hoped the thesis will facilitate an increased awareness of


11

the planning and development processes which affect caravan parks and affordable housing, and that the recommendations will be considered as viable and constructive. The aim of the thesis is to research a relatively new topic area and research the following which have been introduced in the problem statement:

What is the current role of caravan parks in the urban housing market and how does this differ from the intended role?

What factors have influenced the use of caravan parks for permanent residency?

What is the extent of caravan park closure in Australia generally and more specifically Sydney?

What are the economic and social implications of caravan park closures?

What is the future of urban caravan parks? How can government policy assist in solving the implications of the loss of this form of low-cost housing?

For the purpose of this study, the Sydney Metropolitan Area comprises all land in the urbanised area in and surrounding the city of Sydney. The area is defined by Waterfall to the south; Camden to the south-west; Emu Plains to the west, Richmond to the north-west and Sackville to the north. 1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this research consists of numerous elements and utilises a range of techniques, including a combination of quantitative and to a lesser degree qualitative approaches. The thesis essentially comprises a discourse analysis of existing literature and data available in relation to caravan parks. The qualitative component has been used to supplement and highlight various aspects of the findings and to provide additional information where required. Although the thesis broadly applies to Australia, the focus is on New South Wales (NSW) and more specifically the Sydney Metropolitan Area. The use of multiple data sources to address the research aims enhances the generalisability of the research findings. Discourse Analysis

The basis of this thesis is a review of historical and current literature, official data, legislation and statutory planning instruments available in relation to caravan parks, the urban economy and housing


12

affordability. This establishes the parameters of the research and identifies the significant gap in existing discourse. Much of the existing research on caravan parks is primarily qualitative and focuses on the characteristics and experiences of long-term residents and households, with relatively little research being directed at the association between housing affordability, land value, caravan park closure and policy provision. Therefore, the focus of the thesis will be on caravan park closures; the associated causal processes; the implications of the loss of housing; and recommendations for the future. Audit of Caravan Parks in Sydney

An audit will be undertaken of the caravan parks currently operating in the Sydney Metropolitan Area, including those which have recently closed or are under immediate threat of closure. A combination of data sources were used to complete the audit, including ABS catalogues; public records from the NSW Parks and Village Service (PAVS); local government records; street directories; the Yellow Pages; and the National Road and Motorist Association (NRMA) caravan park directory. Having sourced and developed a list of caravan parks which have closed, or which are earmarked for closure in the next two years, local government file searches were conducted under the Freedom of Information Act and Section 12 of the Local Government Act. Six caravan parks were researched in detail:

Silver Beach Caravan Park, Kurnell (closed);

Sundowner Village, Parklea (closed);

Lansdowne, Canley Vale (closed);

La Mancha, Berowra (closed); and

Casa Paloma, Leppington (closing December 2006).

The chronology on events leading to the closure of the above caravan parks was researched, as was the perceived level of social impact and details of compensation. Using this information, along with estimated land values sourced from software program ‘RPData’, an assessment of the viability of caravan parks was developed based around the likely profit margins of the land’s existing use as a caravan park.


13

Key Informant Interviews

The use of qualitative methods were undertaken to complement the discourse analysis and to provide a wider contextual setting,

John Mackenzie, the Information and Resources Coordinator for PAVS. PAVS is a community-based organisation funded by the NSW Office of Fair Trading to resource tenancy services and caravan park resident groups. The employees have extensive experience in working with caravan park residents affected by park closure and are an authoritative body on the resultant social and economic impact.

Rhonda Burton, the resident spokesperson of Casa Paloma Caravan Park in Leppington and a resident of the park for 10 years. The residents of Casa Paloma have been given notice to vacate the park by November 30, 2006 as the land owner awaits development approval from Liverpool Council. The proposal involves the removal of all existing structures on the land to make way for 256 new manufactured homes, associated recreational facilities and internal roadways. As the new homes will be required to be purchased outright, the majority of existing residents at Casa Paloma will be displaced without adequate compensation as it is not economically possible for most of them to stay.

Please refer to Appendix B for the UNSW FBE ethics approval documentation for these interviews. 1.5 THESIS STRUCTURE


This component of the thesis summarises the purpose, scope and methodology used in relation to the research. A background to the problem and a summary of the theoretical foundation has been provided. The research statement outlines the intent of the project and establishes the parameters for research objectives, methodology and the range of data sources utilised. Finally, the introduction provides a brief description of the content of each of the chapters contained in this thesis. Chapter Two: The Housing Role of Caravan Parks

This chapter identifies and demonstrates the significance of caravan parks as a permanent housing option for low-income earners. A synopsis of the evolution of the urban caravan park is provided, which describes its development from a provider of short-term accommodation into a recognised


14

housing resource for a small but significant portion of the Australian population. A brief history of caravan parks will be included in this chapter, followed by a quantitative overview of caravan parks in Australia and more specifically NSW. This information will be analysed and discussed, with particular focus being on the characteristics of long-term residents. Chapter Three: The Factors Influencing the use of Caravan Parks for Permanent Residency

Chapter Three investigates the reasons associated with the use of the caravan park as a form of permanent housing. The historical and existing contexts are considered through an analysis of housing discourse and urban economic theory. It is explained that the failure of state governments to adequately limit the use of caravan parks for the provision of short-term accommodation from their outset made it very difficult to legislate against permanent residents at a later date once they had become well-established (Mackenzie 2003). Other reasons for the growth of the sector are explored and include the failure of the market to provide equal access to rental and ownership, and the failure of governments to adequately and efficiently support households in need of assistance. Chapter Four: The Demise of Urban Caravan Parks

The fourth chapter in this thesis discusses the high rate of closure of caravan parks in Australia in recent years. This is a relatively recent trend which is threatening the future of a critical source of housing for a vulnerable sector of the population. Existing research and information collected from various organisations is analysed in this chapter and used to identify the caravan parks in the Sydney Metropolitan Area which have recently ceased to operate, as well as those which are under immediate threat of closure. The reasons for closure, which relate primarily to development and economic factors, are also investigated. Chapter Five: The Implications of Caravan Park Closure

Chapter Five details the broad implications of caravan park closures. The impacts can be far-reaching as they usually extend beyond the quantitative reduction in low-cost housing stock. While the immediate and irreplaceable loss of the unique housing opportunities provided through caravan parks is alarming, it is the intangible loss of social networks that has incited the concern of industry experts and residents of parks threatened by imminent closure. This chapter presents the viewpoint of the displaced resident as well as the land owner, who arguably does not need to take responsibility for the human impacts associated with the development of a parcel of land. Also discussed are the shortfalls


15

of existing legislation which fail to provide displaced households with adequate monetary compensation for the loss of their physical home nor for the intangible costs arising from the disintegration of their social networks. Chapter Six: Considerations for the Future

The closure of caravan parks is an issue which needs to be addressed by Australian social and housing policy makers, as existing social and environmental planning policy is currently insufficient. Chapter Six explains that substantial and detailed recommendations for future change and improvement are not being drafted by government. It draws upon the findings of this thesis and provides a prediction on the future of residential caravan parks. A set of recommendations addressing ways to minimise the problems associated with inevitable closure are included. In order to ensure this important form of low-cost housing is retained or that those displaced as a result of closure are compensated, it is imperative that government considers a change to existing legislation. Chapter Seven: Conclusion

The final component of this thesis summarises the research background, findings and recommendations of the previous six chapters. To ensure the original aims of the thesis have been comprehensively addressed, particular reference is made to the research statement and objectives provided in Chapter One Finally, based on the findings of this study, suggestions for future research and gaps in existing discourse have been identified. 1.6 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

The following limitations are constraints of the research process and need to be considered when reading this thesis:

The scope of this thesis does not allow for a comprehensive study of all caravan parks, and for this reason the focus of the research is generally on the Sydney Metropolitan Area.

There are a number of discrepancies with ABS data, meaning long-term analysis is problematic. In the past, information was collected from all caravan parks regardless of their size; however from 1997 the ABS only included caravan parks with a minimum of 40 sites in their analyses. In addition, caravan parks were previously included as part of a quarterly data


16

release (Catalogue No.8635), which was discontinued in 1997. Currently data is only released tri-annually, with 2003 being the reference year. The 2006 data is yet to become available.

Much of data derived from ABS catalogues is restricted to an Australia-wide classification, while other parts of the discussion are enumerated on a NSW-specific basis.

The most recent ABS Census data is from 2001 and significant changes to urban caravan parks have occurred during this time. Comparison of ABS data with street directories, PAVS records, the Yellow Pages and the NRMA caravan park directory enabled a comprehensive and current list to be developed.

1.7 SUMMARY

This chapter has introduced the various components of the thesis, including the background of the issue to be investigated, the research intent and the methodology used throughout the research process. Although this thesis has a strong theoretical grounding on previous studies which relate to affordable housing and urban economics, it seeks to make a contribution to the small body of existing literature which explore the recent phenomenon of caravan park closure in urban areas. The value of caravan parks as a source of permanent housing cannot be overestimated, and the reasons why will be addressed in Chapter 2.


17

CHAPTER TWO:

THE HOUSING ROLE OF CARAVAN PARKS

This chapter identifies and demonstrates the significance of caravan parks as a permanent housing option for low-income earners. The chapter begins with a synopsis of the evolution of the caravan park industry, by describing its changing role from a provider of low-cost, short-term accommodation into a recognised provider of permanent housing. A brief history of caravan parks is included, followed by a quantitative overview of caravan parks in Australia, and more specifically NSW. Common problems associated with caravan park residency are identified in this chapter, with particular reference to legislative shortfalls. It should be noted that the figures provided throughout the chapter typically refer to all caravan parks, including those in coastal, rural and metropolitan areas, and therefore the urban component as an individual unit is often veiled. However, the statistics provided by the ABS have a high level of generalisability and this has been confirmed through the use of multiple data sources, in particular social impact reports and council investigations relating to various caravan parks in Sydney. In addition, the information provided in this chapter includes all residents of caravan parks, regardless of whether they live in traditional caravans and mobile homes, or more gentrified manufactured housing and cabins. 2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE CARAVAN PARK INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA

The historical development of caravan parks at an international scale is a relevant consideration as it influenced the rise of the industry in Australia. During the 1950s there was a rapid growth of the mobile home industry in the USA. This resulted in a rise in the number of caravan and ‘trailer’ parks as a form of ‘stopgap’ accommodation to ease the post-war housing crises. They became an acceptable and affordable alternative to conventional housing and although the growth of the sector slowed from the 1960s, caravan parks currently accommodate more than 12.5 million Americans. Between 1975 and 1995 over one-quarter of the new housing built annually in the USA were mobile homes (Wallis 1997). To a lesser extent but still demonstrating the significance of the sector, in England and Wales there are

Chapter Two: The Housing Role of Caravan Parks

18

currently close to 120,000 individuals permanently living in caravan parks (Office of Deputy Prime Minister 2002). In Australia, caravan parks have traditionally and legislatively been associated with low-cost rental accommodation for tourists, despite the fact they have provided a form of permanent accommodation for at least 60 years. They were originally built in coastal areas outside of capital cities within Crown reserves which were used as camping grounds for tents. After World War II the reserves were converted into caravan parks, however they had few communal facilities and were typically maintained and administered by local councils (Mackenzie 2003; Maher 1979). In the late 1970s privately owned caravan parks were developed on the fringe of capital cities specifically to accommodate itinerant and seasonal workers in blue collar industries. By that time mobile and manufactured homes were replacing the traditional caravan and a significant proportion of the transient population had settled illegally in the parks. Park owners turned a blind eye to local and state legislation, which in most cases limited the duration of a patron’s stay to no longer than three consecutive months in any 12 month period. It was not until the mid-1990s, when the Western Australian government became the final state to legislate permanent residency, that caravan park living was legalised nationally. In 1986 the NSW Government instigated the recognition of the changing role of caravan parks with the introduction of

Local Government Ordinance 71, which provided minimum standards for caravan park living and permitted the permanent or long-term occupation of sites. Also introduced at this time was State

Environmental Planning Policy No.21 – Moveable Dwellings (SEPP 21), which enabled individuals to reside in caravan parks for up to five years. This was replaced by SEPP 21 – Caravan Parks in 1992 which aimed to encourage “the orderly and economic use and development of land used or intended to be used as a caravan park catering exclusively or predominantly for short-term residents (such as tourists) or for long-term residents, or catering for both” (SEPP 21 1992 NSW). Caravan parks were acknowledged as a form of housing for the first time in the 1986 Census, when it was discovered that approximately two thirds of people staying in caravan parks on the night of the census had no other place of residence (ABS 2001a). The gradual changes to legislation in Australia were considered by Volke (2001) to be a convenient political decision, as governments were hopeful the move would take some strain off the growing need for affordable housing. The legislation was also seen as a response to persistent pressures from the


19

caravan park industry, which was interested in reproducing the success of the USA, where caravan parks have been an established form of housing since at least the 1960s and accounted for approximately 75 percent of low cost housing during the 1970s (Maher Report 1979). In 1993 Mowbray suggested “Such large-scale developments…are commonplace in the United States, and may well come to proliferate in Australia” (Mowbray 2003, 1). However the success of the industry overseas was never replicated in Australia. In fact, even when the number of establishments peaked in the 1980s, caravan parks failed to become as prolific or socially acceptable as they did in the USA. Caravan parks have become an integral component of the city housing landscape and are increasingly associated with providing housing for those excluded from the broader private or public housing rental markets (Beckwith 1998). In metropolitan areas caravan parks typically comprise rental dwellings, where both the land and dwelling are rented; and rented sites, where a parcel of land is leased for privately owned caravans with temporary or permanent annexes, manufactured homes or cabins. Urban located caravan park establishments account for 22 percent of all caravan park residents in Australia (ABS 2001a) and although many continue to contribute to the tourist sector by providing short-term accommodation, this function is secondary. Conversely, caravan parks in non-metropolitan coastal areas, country towns and remote locations generally display a lower overall proportion of permanent residents and in 2000 there were only 40 permanent residents living in 12 rural caravan parks in NSW (Connor and Ferns 2002). 2.2 CARAVAN PARKS: HOUSING THE ‘MARGINALLY HOMELESS’ Caravan Parks and Homelessness

There is considerable debate surrounding the definition of homelessness and whether or not caravan park residents can be categorised under this umbrella term. The characteristics that constitute the various degrees of disadvantage have been broadly categorised by the ABS (2001a) through the establishment of operational definitions that distinguish between absolute and relative homelessness by recognising three tiers within this category. These are summarised as follows:

Primary homelessness: The absolute homeless, including the impoverished and individuals without conventional accommodation such as those living on the streets, in parks or squatting.


20

Secondary Homelessness: People who move frequently from one form of temporary shelter to another, including those using emergency accommodation such as hostels and refuges, or boarding houses on an occasional or intermittent basis.

Tertiary homelessness: Individuals who live in boarding houses on a medium-term to long-

term basis, or those receiving housing assistance from the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP). This is a national program which is administrated by state and territory governments which assists people who are homeless (or at risk of homelessness) through a range of support and supported accommodation services. The 2001 Census established that 1.4 percent of the 990,000 homeless people in Australia are living in SAAP accommodation (ABS 2001a).

Caravan Park Residents – ‘The Marginally Homeless’: A fourth group of people not

enumerated as homeless by the ABS are the permanent residents of caravan parks, who are described as marginal residents of caravan parks for data collection purposes, or the ‘marginally homeless’ by various commentators (Bostock 2001; Greenhalgh 2002; Tsorbaris 2001; Wensing et al. 2003). Caravan parks are considered to be an intermediary between the mainstream housing market and homelessness (Figure 2.1), as the people who reside in them generally do so through financial necessity rather than as a lifestyle choice (Forell et al. 2005).

Figure 2.1: Caravan Parks ‘Fill the Gap’ Between Mainstream Housing and Homelessness

Caravan Park

Residents*

Mainstream Housing Market

* Also in this category are houseboats, impoverished homes, tents and living quarters attached to a place of business

Source: Wedgwood 2006


21

In a 2001 publication entitled “Counting the homeless” the ABS did not include caravan park residents in its analysis. This is despite the knowledge that this form of housing provides a last resort for a small but significant portion of the population in terms of ownership and rental options. The accommodation can be equivalent to or worse than the conditions endured by those classified as secondary or tertiary homeless. In fact, boarding house accommodation is often regarded as more “culturally appropriate” (Chamberlain and Mackenzie 1992, 22) than caravan parks. This is a standard provided in the Census information booklet which indicates that housing should meet the minimum culturally acceptable expectation of a dwelling. It assumes the provision of one room for sleeping, one room for living, exclusive use of a bathroom and kitchen, and a degree of tenure security. Given that caravan park accommodation often fails to meet these criteria, it is unclear why residents are not included in the ‘tertiary homeless’ category. If they were, the number of people identified as being homeless would increase by up to 123,000 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2005), yielding an 18 percent increase in existing figures. Furthermore, it is likely that this number would be even greater given the inadequacies of ABS data, which is discussed in the section 2.3 of this chapter. 2.3 THE EXTENT OF CARAVAN PARK LIVING

Resident Numbers

It is very difficult to determine accurate figures relating to caravan park resident numbers as there are significant discrepancies in the available data. The wording of the Census makes it difficult to establish a realistic figure and this is a concern shared by most commentators. Caravan park residents are identified by the ABS on the basis that their dwelling type is a ‘caravan’ or ‘cabin’ located within a caravan park. This is problematic because residents may fail to identify with either of these classifications, as they may live in what they regard as a detached dwelling (manufactured home), albeit within a caravan estate. In addition, park owners are often responsible for incorrectly completing census forms and are thought to underquote resident numbers. “The conflict between the landlord role and Census collector is further confused by limits councils put on the number of permanent sites so that it is in an owner’s interest to underestimate the number of permanent residents if they have rented out more permanent sites than their entitlement” (Connor and Ferns 2002, 11). Furthermore, the ABS figures are misleading as data is only collected from parks containing more than 40 sites. Urban caravan parks tend to have smaller site numbers than their non-metropolitan counterparts, meaning many are not included in the Census. Until ABS reviews its collection methods, definitions and census


22

questions pertaining to caravan parks, the Census will remain an unreliable tool for analysing (ibid). Nonetheless, it is the most comprehensive database available. The existence of long-term residency in caravan parks throughout Australia is significant and growing. Despite the NSW Local Government Act 1919 prohibiting the length of stay of caravan park patrons, it is estimated that over 100,000 individuals lived permanently in caravan parks in NSW in the 1970s (Maher Report 1979). Between 1981 and 1985 long-term residency increased by 53 percent, and between 1986 and 1989 it increased a further 52 percent (National Housing Strategy 1992, 58). Information collected from the 2001 Census indicated that caravan parks are now the sole place of residence for approximately 26,000 people in NSW. Despite significant losses in overall site numbers (to be discussed in Chapter 4), this represents an increase of almost 6300 since the 1996 Census. Demonstrating the ambiguity of the extent of caravan park living, PAVS estimates that NSW has over 50,000 caravan park residents (Connor and Ferns 2002). More alarming is the uncertainty of the national figure. While the ABS estimates that 61,500 Australians (or 38,300 households) live permanently in caravan parks, in an address to Parliament in 2001, NSW Legislative Council member Jan Burnswoods suggested that if the ABS were to include all caravan parks in its calculation, without limiting data collection to establishment size and accommodation type, the national figure would more likely be 161,000. “Those figures probably understate the total, because they do not necessarily pick up people…who are perhaps living illegally at various sites. Nevertheless, even those official figures indicate that something like 161,000 Australians are living permanently in mobile homes, caravan parks, and so on” (Burnswoods 2001, 11990). This figure is similar to that provided by O’Dwyer (2005) who estimated that in May 2005 there were approximately 144,000 Australians living in caravan parks. There is clearly an ‘invisible’ population existing in caravan parks, and the inadequacies of data collection methods (as already explained) most likely contribute to the failure of policy makers to acknowledge and adequately manage this section of the community. If there are to be developments in policy and statutory protection for residents of caravan parks then state jurisdictions will need to keep accurate records relating to permanent resident numbers, perhaps separate from those of the ABS. NSW Establishments

There is also no central database recording official caravan park establishments and site numbers in NSW or indeed Australia. The ABS reported there were 815 caravan parks in NSW at the time of the 2001 census, whereas in 2003 Planning NSW reported that there were 961 establishments in its


23

jurisdiction and that park numbers had recently decreased (Wensing et al. 2003). In her article titled ‘Home among the gum trees’, Connor (2004) documented that 56 percent of caravan parks in NSW catered for permanent residents, and that over one-quarter of the total individuals sites were dedicated to the long-term function. Alternatively, Reed and Greenhalgh (2003) believe it is more likely that half of all sites in NSW are occupied by permanent residents. 2.4 A PROFILE OF PERMANENT CARAVAN PARK RESIDENTS

According to Wensing et al (2003), there are generally three distinctive sub-groups of permanent residents who live in caravan parks. These are summarised as follows:

1. People who have made a deliberate choice to live in a caravan park for reasons of lifestyle, including a sense of community, access to communal facilities and affordability. This subgroup refers mainly to non-metropolitan caravan parks in coastal areas and typically comprises a large proportion of retirees who are on fixed incomes from superannuation and/or pensions.

2. Workers in the construction industry, farming and fruit pickers, or others with low paid jobs who live long-term or permanently in caravan parks. This subgroup tends to rent both the van and the site, so they can move easily as employment becomes available.

3. People who move into a caravan park as a last resort because they are unable to access housing in the private rental market or in public housing.

Regardless of which category a resident falls into, it can be assumed that the decision to live in a caravan park is influenced by economic factors, as even those in the first group are constrained by income. Household Composition

There are significant differences between the characteristics of caravan park households and the characteristics of the average Australian household. Most noteworthy is that caravan parks contain a relatively small number of people per household with proportionally more individuals living alone. The 2001 Census indicated that almost 60 percent of caravan park residents lived in lone person households on the night of the Census, compared to the average Australian household (24 percent). The high proportion of lone person households relates to the finding that the age of residents in


24

caravan park households is comparatively older than the average Australian household, and that proportionally fewer couples live with dependent children than those in the average Australian household. Figure 2.2 shows that in 2001 almost 23 percent of individuals living in caravan parks were aged over 65 years, while 12.6 percent was the Australian household average In addition, 41.5 percent of residents were aged 55 and older, with 22 percent being the Australian household average.

Figure 2.2: Percentage of Individuals in Caravan Parks (2001)

Age Caravan Park Residents Average Australian Household (%) (years) (%)

0 - 14 10.8 20.8

12 – 24 8.9 13.7

25 – 34 11.1 14.5

35 – 44 12.9 15.3

45 – 54 15.9 13.7

55 – 64 17.9 9.4 41.5% 22%

Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from ABS 2001b

Employment

A key characteristic of caravan parks is the high level of unemployment and the relatively low median household income. In 2001 only 31 percent of park residents were employed, however a significant number of residents would not have been seeking work as they were of retirement age (Figure 2.3). Notwithstanding this, the unemployment figure would also be influenced by the poor level of education of the residents. In 2001 80 percent of residents were found to have no recognised post-school qualification (ABS, 2001b). Of those who were employed, 25 percent were labourers and 19 percent were intermediate production and transport workers. This is not representative of the Australian average, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.

65 and over 22.6 12.6

TOTAL 100 100


25

Figure 2.3: Employment Rate (2001) Figure 2.4: Occupation Comparison (2001)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Average Australian Household

Caravan Park Residents

Proportion of Population (%)

26%

5%

80 90 100

LABO

URER

S

PR

OFES

SION

ALS

9%

18%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70



Proportion of Population Employed* (%)

31%

56%

80 90 100

Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from ABS 2001b Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from ABS 2001b *Includes individuals not actively seeking work, for example retirees.

Household Income

In 2001 the median weekly household income in caravan parks was recorded as being $293 (ABS 2001a). Remarkably, this was less than half the median of $637 for all households in Australia (refer Figure 2.5). The difference could relate to the high proportion of lone-person, single income households in caravan parks and the assumption that many of them are retirees who receive a pension as their main source of income and are not employed. Therefore, not only do caravan parks include proportionally more lower-income households, but for each household type, caravan park residents generally have lower median incomes than the remainder of the Australian population. Interestingly, 54 percent of caravan park households in 2001 owned their residence compared to 40 percent of all households in Australia (ABS 2001a). Additionally, in 2001 approximately 51 percent of households in caravan parks earned under $400 per week compared with 23 percent of the remainder of the Australian population (ABS 2001b). Although there are no recent figures available which provide the average proportion of household income spent on rent, in 1996, 41 percent of households renting a dwelling in a caravan park were in rental stress, which is generally considered to occur when a household is paying more than 30 percent of its total combined income on housing (refer Figure 2.6).


26

Figure 2.5: Median Weekly Household Figure 2.6: Households in Rental Stress (1996) Income (2001)

0 10 30 50 70



41%

27%

90 60 20 40 80 100 0 100 300 500 700



$293

$637

900

Median Weekly Household Income ($) (

Proportion of Households in Rental Stress (%)

Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from ABS 2000b Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from ABS 2000a

2.5 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CARAVAN PARK RESIDENCY Concentration of Disadvantage and Stigma

In terms of demographic profile, caravan park residents do not display a high degree of diversity and are commonly associated with social disadvantage and vulnerability due to their characteristics (Greenhalgh et al. 2001). It has been demonstrated that in comparison to the average Australian household, caravan park residents typically have low levels of income and employment and a higher than average age. Given this, they have the potential to be socially marginalised and in many instances these establishments have essentially become an “enclave for the poor, sick and the aged” (Jopson 2006, 8). In addition, Wensing et al. (2003) recognise that deinstitutionalisation has lead to caravan parks increasingly being used to house a mix of other materially and socially disadvantaged individuals and families including individuals exiting prison; women and children escaping domestic violence; and people with disabilities, addictions or mental illness who once lived in assisted living arrangements. The type of residents who reside in caravan parks and the type of housing provided means that this land use is likely to magnify social and economic segmentation in urban areas. The fact that caravan


27

park accommodation is different from, and in many ways inferior to, conventional housing, has led to further disadvantage and social stigma for many residents. A report of the Joint Local Government, Planning and Housing Officials Working Group (1986) found that stigma leads to discrimination by the wider community, which is particularly difficult to overcome and reinforces physical and social isolation from other residential areas. Sub-standard Living Conditions and Lack of Facilities

Caravan park accommodation often falls short of acceptable community standards for long-term residences and this can have a significant bearing upon the health and well-being of residents. The main concerns have been documented by Wensing et al. (2003) and include:

shared toilet and shower facilities, which can create safety concerns, particularly for women and children;

unclean or unsanitary toilets and showers;

lack of privacy due to close living conditions;

lack of or inadequate cooking facilities and cleaning equipment in the communal food preparation area or in dwellings , which can cause health concerns.

The photographs on the following page show examples of the poor conditions evident in many caravan parks. On the left is a traditional caravan at Casa Paloma Caravan Park in Leppington. The refrigerator and gas cylinders are visible on the outside of the dwelling and there are no private amenities available to the resident. The photograph on the right shows a caravan park in Miranda which only accommodates mobile homes. The dwellings are located less than three metres from each other and there would be little visual and acoustic privacy.


28

Source: Wedgwood 2006 A Traditional Caravan in Leppington (left) and Mobile Homes in Miranda.

Given that many caravan park residents cannot access alternative housing, they may be vulnerable to exploitation by park owners and managers. Despite an unacceptable standard of facilities residents are often unwilling to challenge caravan park owners and managers for fear of eviction or an increase in rent (Wensing et al. 2003). In NSW, the introduction of Ordinance 71 and SEPP 21 in 1986 meant that new standards were introduced for caravan parks, however they applied only to new establishments and existing parks were granted exemptions. These exemptions still apply in 2006, making it possible for older parks to maintain their sub-standard facilities and inadequate separation distances between dwellings (Mackenzie 2003). Governments must redress the ‘institutional discrimination’ (Wensing et al. 2003) against caravan parks, which further exacerbates the difficulties faced by residents. For example, many local councils disregard their caravan park population in community services (for example childcare) on the basis that they are ‘transient’. There can also be a lack of personal freedom for residents due to the degree of control or interference from managers who may restrict the number of visitors to a park, or even charge entry fees for the family and friends who are visiting. In addition, mail is often received centrally by management and it is not unusual for phone usage to be monitored (Mowbray 1993). “Parks provide a living environment that is structurally at odds with the world of the 21st Century, where personal freedom of choice is a paramount value” (Connor and Ferns 2002, 5). Furthermore, although caravan parks are often still associated with tourism and renowned for being located in picturesque surrounds, in reality the parks in urban areas are typically located away from town centres, transport nodes and


29

other services. This is far from ideal when considering the income, ages and nature of the people who reside in them. Poverty Trap

The Maher Report (1979) stated that in the 1970s many caravan park residents were under the impression that their dwelling would appreciate in value and ultimately provide a means to a housing deposit. Almost 30 years later John Mackenzie (2006, pers. comm.) explained that the assumption remains that the various dwelling types in caravan parks are an extremely affordable asset, while in reality they depreciate significantly and have very little long term value. In relative terms they actually ‘cost’ the owner more than a conventional dwelling in terms of profit at time of sale. “When all costs were considered including depreciation, site rental, the higher interest payable on borrowings for manufactured homes and the time related costs of money, (caravan park living was) found to be significantly more expensive over time than a free standing house in most scenarios modelled” (Mowbray and Stubbs 1996, 514). Although the ‘trailer park’ appeared to be a successful mechanism to overcome affordability issues in the USA, if the Maher Committee had been more stringent in their scrutiny of international comparisons they would have realised that dubious lending policies by financial institutions had “resulted in many defaults and repossessions of mobile homes and that the parks with good facilities were generally for ‘well off’ retirees” (Granger 1997, 65). Insecurity of Tenure and Lack of Legislative Protection

Caravan park households are amongst the most vulnerable groups in society due to their tenuous housing arrangements, earning capacity and lack of legislative protection. Although they are often dismissed as a transient population, 35 percent of people in all caravan parks in Australia on the night of the 2001 Census were at the same address five years earlier (ABS 2001a). This demonstrates the low level of mobility of the sector and the significant reliance on this form of accommodation. “The notion that caravan park dwellers are not permanent still pervades policy makers…resulting in adequate responses from both government and non-government specialist community services and support agencies” (Wensing et al. 2003, 55). Caravan park residents are extremely vulnerable regardless of whether they own their dwelling and rent a site, or rent both their site and accommodation. They are essentially renting a portion of land within a property and accordingly, have no legal right to privacy; can be evicted without reason; and, in


30

four Australian jurisdictions (Tasmania, South Australia, Northern Territory and ACT), can be evicted without notice. “There are a lot of people living in parks who live in fear and insecurity” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). In addition, caravans are generally not covered by residential building codes and the amenities of parks were not necessarily designed or legislated for long-term residence. The residential tenancy legislation covering caravans and relocatable homes in each State and Territory is summarised in Figure 2.7. The Commonwealth has no relevant legislation.


31

Figure 2.7: The Status of Legislation Relating to Caravan Park Tenancy

Jurisdiction Legislation Relating to Tenancy Rights

Other Standards / Regulations

Australian Capital Territory

No. There are no standards or specific regulations for caravan parks and residents.

New South Wales Yes. Residential Parks Act 1998 sets out the respective rights and obligations of park owners and resident

Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005 aims to ensure the quality and design of all establishments enforced at a local government level.

Victoria Yes. The Residential Tenancies (Caravan Parks and Moveable Dwellings) Regulations 1999 provides standards for long term caravan park living.

Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 provides tenancy rights and duties relating specifically to owners and residents of caravan parks and moveable dwellings. The Building Act and Health Act also apply.

Queensland Yes. The Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 controls procedures involving park owners and tenants, such as site agreements.

The Residential Tenancies Regulation 2005 provides further provisions relating to tenancy agreements.

Western Australia Yes. The Residential Parks (Long-

stay Tenants) Act 2006 regulates the relationship between caravan park operators and tenants, and improves tenancy protection

The Caravan Parks and Camping Grounds Regulations 1997 provide provisions relating to caravan park design, including ‘homes’ in caravan parks.

South Australia No. Despite significant campaigning and the preparation of a bill in 2001 to include caravan parks in the Residential Tenancies Act 1995, no legislative changes have been made addressing tenancy protection.

Tasmania No. Local government is deemed responsible for caravan parks bylaws, as there are no state standards or regulations.

Northern Territory No. The Caravan Parks Act 1975 was repealed in 2000.

None. Caravan park residents are not even protected by the 1997-8 Tenancy Act.

Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from Law and Legislation Australia 2006


32

The disregard for tenancy rights in caravan parks has been an issue for many decades and continues to distress those relying on this form of housing. While there have been recent improvements in terms of legislative changes, many caravan park residents remain at considerable risk of eviction and homelessness (Bostock 2001) as only half the jurisdictions comprehensively ensure tenancy protection. Interestingly, since 2003 when Wensing et al. reported on the state of legislation relating to caravan park residency, there have been significant legislative changes in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The new regulations focus on improvements to tenancy protection and the establishment of standards to which park owners must adhere. Despite this, there remains a critical lack of legislative protection for permanent residents, particularly in the Northern Territory, South Australia and the ACT. 2.6 CARAVAN PARKS AS A POSITIVE HOUSING EXPERIENCE There is a notable gap in much of the commentary on caravan parks which presents an image of dissatisfaction and despondency within the caravan park community, and fails to expose the positive housing experiences of many residents. This is perhaps attributable to the quantitative nature of previous research and the mindset of the commentators who, based on the author information accompanying their commentary, could generally be assumed to be educated, middleclass members of society who do not live in caravan parks. Similarly, up until this point the information presented in this thesis has been based on statistics which suggest that caravan parks are an enclave of disadvantage. However in-depth interviews and surveys conducted at different caravan parks in Australia (for example by Greenhalgh and Connor 2003; Hogarth et al. 1994; Mackenzie 2003; Secomb 2000; Stuart et al. 2005) found that many residents to be very content and their experience to be positive, although they acknowledged they had limited choice of alternative accommodation. Rhonda Burton has been a resident of Casa Paloma Caravan Park in Leppington on Sydney’s south-western fringe for 10 years. She is the resident spokesperson of the park and continues to challenge the imminent redevelopment of the site. In an in-depth interview she explained to me that caravan parks display a remarkable sense of community and camaraderie, an element that most people would not realise. “There is a preconceived idea that people who live in caravans are like what the Americans call ‘trailer trash’, but it’s not like that all, it’s the wrong perception altogether. We are law-abiding people, we work. Some of us have had hard knocks, harder than some others and are just trying to make things work and are really not bad people at all. Everyone thinks the people who live in caravan


33

parks are not worth a ‘tuppenny dam’ but there are some really lovely people and they make the best of what they have. We have Filipinos, Maoris, Africans - all different nationalities and we all get along together. None of us have any problems, we all mix in. In fact it’s quite interesting to hear of their different cultures and different things they do. Some people out there wouldn’t understand what it’s like for us. Once the milk has gone you can’t get any more until the next pay – we can’t just buy more without thinking about it. We all borrow from each other and get along together. It is the old Australia and it’s all getting lost, people are too concerned about multi-culturalism and prejudice against this and that. In here you can’t afford to be prejudiced, we all have to get along together because it is very close living. Some people out there could learn a lesson from us” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). Research conducted by Dorothy Secomb (2000) found that approximately 94 percent of residents from 34 caravan parks in NSW were satisfied with their home and living arrangement. She found that resident satisfaction was dependant on resident interactions and perceptions, and that this was influenced by the positive attitude of the individual towards themselves, their neighbours and the support network within parks. Correspondingly, other researchers (Greenhalgh and Connor 2003; Hogarth et al. 1994; Mackenzie 2003; Stuart et al. 2005) have found that there are a number of factors influencing the level of resident satisfaction. These include:

The ‘sense of community’ felt by residents;

pride of residence;

supportive relationships with other residents;

positive relationships with park managers;

adequate park standards; and

accepted social practices.

Rhonda Burton echoed these findings and made particular reference to the kinship between residents at Casa Paloma. “Life in the caravan park – it is a community, a real community. Someone gets sick or needs help, the others will help. Everyone keeps an eye on the children. There are a dozen mums and a dozen dads, but everyone here looks after the kids, including the young boy with Downs Syndrome. In the streets someone might just take them or act violently, we don’t have that fear here. We can still walk out and visit a friend without locking the door which you can’t do in the suburbs. It is


34

like a small village and everyone knows everyone else and we all try and work together” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). 2.7 SUMMARY

This chapter has provided a commentary on the evolution of caravan parks from a provider of low-cost rental accommodation to a supplement to the traditional housing market. The inadequacies of data collection methods in this sector make it difficult to determine the extent of the population’s reliance on caravan parks, however it is evident that this section of society is not accurately accounted for. Also discussed in this chapter were the issues relating to permanent tenancy and the characteristics of caravan park residents in terms of demographic profile and attitudes. This involved dispelling some of the stereotypes associated with this form of housing and highlighting the strength of the social support structure inherent in the parks. This network can relieve problems of isolation and loneliness which exist in more conventional housing forms. Having presented an overview of the role of caravan parks in the housing market, it is critical to investigate the reasons influencing their use for permanent accommodation. This is provided in Chapter 3.


35

CHAPTER THREE:

THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE USE OF CARAVAN PARKS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCY

This chapter reviews the history and factors influencing the use of caravan parks as a form of permanent housing and considers both the historical and existing contexts. The failure of state governments to adequately limit the use of caravan parks for the provision of short-term accommodation from their outset (Mackenzie 2003) made it very difficult to legislate against permanent residents once they had become well established. Reasons behind the growth of the sector are explored and include the failure of the market to provide complete access to the rental and ownership markets; and the failure of governments to adequately and efficiently support households in need. 3.1 THE FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

Caravan parks were not initially developed or designed for long-term use and it is important to document how the industry has reached a point in Australia where it now provides permanent accommodation for an increasing number of people. It appears as though the increasing number of caravan parks offering permanent accommodation could have been controlled had adequate legislation been applied more effectively by local governments. In NSW, an amendment to the Local Government Act 1919 (Section 288A) in 1945, provided local governments with the power to regulate the activities of both their own and privately owned caravan parks. Despite this, the majority of councils failed to efficiently police the prohibition by evicting long-term guests under Section 288A as they were reluctant to interfere in the operation of private enterprises. In addition, the legislation was marred by loopholes and this meant that permanent residency continued to occur in many parks across the state of NSW (Mackenzie 2003). “…the legislation was poorly drafted and inconsistently enforced. Technically, the prohibition could be avoided by a resident temporarily relocating to another site in the park…or to another caravan park” (Boer 1978, 281). The introduction of the amendment to the Local Government Act occurred at a time when caravan park establishments were increasing in number. Had the legislation been updated and more rigidly enforced, then the current situation may have been prevented.

Chapter Three: The Factors Influencing the use of Caravan Parks for Permanent Residency

36

By the 1970s it was estimated that over 100,000 people were established in mobile homes and caravans within caravan parks in NSW (Maher 1979). As a result of the perceived failure of the Local

Government Act 1945, in 1977 a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Parks for Mobile Homes and Caravans in NSW published a review of the status of the industry and published the findings in a document titled the ‘Maher Report’, after Committee Chair Michael Maher. It was found that the use of caravan parks as a means of providing permanent housing was inappropriate due to concerns for resident health and safety and because they represented a serious departure from long-accepted community standards. “…steps should be taken to eliminate (gradually and in a reasonable a manner (sic) as is practicable) the existing incidence of such permanent residency” (Maher 1979, 622). Despite this recommendation, the extent of the reliance on caravan parks and the lack of alternative low-cost accommodation resulted in a motion being passed at the NSW Local Government Conference in 1982 which favoured further amendment of the Local Government Act. The changes resulted in the introduction of legislation permitting the use of caravan parks for residential purposes and were widely supported by the industry because park owners relied on long-term residents for profitability and to avoid fluctuations in occupancy rates. “The industry itself needed people to live in parks long term to get the capital value of the land to appreciate. So, park owners actually lobbied for the legislation to allow people to live in parks” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). By the mid-1990s permanent caravan park living had been legalised in all Australian states and territories following similar legislative changes to those which occurred in NSW. It can be concluded that the failure of the NSW government to act on the recommendations of the Maher Committee contributed greatly to the situation that exists today. It would have been a risk for the government to terminate the tenancies of all permanent residents, as it was under pressure to extend the range of dwelling stock in order to meet electoral pressures and was being held responsible for the inadequate and unaccusable nature of public housing (Mowbray 1993). Regardless, the fact was there were already many people already established in and reliant upon caravan parks for their accommodation and although they were not initially designed for permanent tenancy, the government had become ultimately responsible for this situation. By the early 1990s the NSW government was defending its decision to legislate for long-term residency in caravan parks. “The State Government recognises that (parks containing caravans and manufactured houses) provide a housing alternative to conventional residential development. It sees


37

(their) contribution in terms of increasing housing choice and availability of affordable accommodation. It therefore wants to encourage and facilitate their development” (NSW Department of Planning 1992, 2). At the time, Mowbray (1993) suggested that the government was simply defending its previous decision and would not admit to being relieved at having found a means for deflecting infrastructural costs away from themselves, while partially rectifying housing affordability problems simultaneously. In 1998 the Carr government introduced the Residential Parks Act 1998 which replaced the first attempt at addressing tenancy issues in caravan parks - the Residential Tenancies Act 1987. The new Act aimed to “support this lifestyle and to assist in confirming it as a viable housing option for potential and existing residents…giving the industry a solid foundation for future investment and expansion” (NSW Legislative Assembly 1998, 9172), however it was flawed from its outset. Not only does the aim of the Residential Parks Act contradict the findings of the Maher Committee which was commissioned under the same party; since its introduction there has been little investment and support dedicated to the development of caravan parks in NSW. The inadequacies of the Residential Parks Act 1998 will be discussed further in Chapter 5. It is difficult to understand that despite the government acknowledging that permanent sites in caravan parks are not an acceptable replacement for conventional housing, the situation has been encouraged to continue. It is 20 years since the government was alerted to the insufficient and ill-equipped nature of caravan parks to house people on a permanent basis, yet no progress has been made to provide alternative accommodation for these households. Action should have been taken immediately before the permanent caravan park population increased to the point it is at now, with government seemingly being unable to provide a viable housing alternative. 3.2 MARKET FAILURE AND DECLINING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

“At every phase of its development, the (caravans and mobile homes) have been shaped by market demands that conventional alternatives, sanctioned by the housing industry and the institutions which guide it, were unable to meet: from the depression, when it offered itinerant workers shelter, during the war when it provided temporary housing, then after the war as mobile housing, and finally as an alternative to the ideal of affordable detached housing. Each of these junctures had been marked by change in market, form, meaning, and name” (Wallis 1997, v).


38

Market Failure

In a ‘perfectly competitive’ market, the supply and demand of goods or resources should influence prices toward an equilibrium whereby the demand for a product is balanced against its supply. So, in urban areas where land is essentially a scarce resource, its value should be the result of the interaction of the overall demand and supply in the market (Evans 2004; Stilwell 1993). However in a capitalist economy where goods are privately owned and there are external influences and multiple investors, the cost and distribution of land cannot be analysed within the conventional framework as allocation occurs through the price system. This creates a situation whereby economic welfare, which is a theory concerned with the welfare of individuals as opposed to that of society as one whole unit, cannot be maximised as there are individuals who cannot access the supply due to limited means. Economists also frequently recognise consumer sovereignty, which is the notion that individuals are able to obtain what they need through the market (Harvey and Jowsey 2000). This framework is theoretical and is not subject to any limitation. This makes it difficult to apply to the property market in Australia where the population is not homogenous and where there is growing income polarisation and decreasing consumer satisfaction (Heikkila 2000). It appears that the ideal of individual economic freedom discussed so frequently in land economic discourse is unrealistic in imperfect markets because it cannot be assumed that everyone has the liberty to obtain what they need. Home ownership is the dominant form of housing tenure in Australia, largely due to a long history of government support. However, the distribution of ownership varies greatly by household type (Thompson 1999). The 2001 Census found that 28 percent of Australians owned their own home and another 32 percent were in the process of purchasing one (ABS 2001c), however it appears that the divide between those wanting to purchase and those who cannot purchase housing is growing. “Facilitating home ownership has always been central to the formulation of housing policy in Australia. An upshot of this fixation is that policy makers have frequently neglected individuals and groups who are unable or unwilling to participate in those form of housing tenure” (Mackenzie 2003, 1). Declining Affordability

The issue of affordability is paramount to the historical and ongoing use of caravan parks as a source of permanent accommodation. Academics and policy makers generally consider housing to be ‘affordable’ when its cost is reasonable in relation to household income. It is typically referred to as being the capacity of people to obtain sound housing without sacrificing more than 30 percent of their


39

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium

combined household income for rent or mortgage repayments (Beer 2004; Berry and Hall 2002; Randolph and Holloway 2002). A ‘low-income’ household has a gross income that falls within 50 to 80 percent of the median household income for the statistical division in which it is located; and ‘very low income’ households fall within less than 50 percent of the median household income for applicable division in which it is located, in accordance with the ABS (2001c). Associated with these terms is ‘housing stress’ which occurs when a household spends more than 30 percent of its total combined income on housing. Between 1986 and 1996 the proportion of low income private tenants living in housing stress in the capital cities rose from 65 percent to almost 75 percent, while the figure for Sydney was 80 percent. By mid-2000 low-income earners could not afford to rent or buy the standard, average-priced three bedroom house in any area of Sydney or Melbourne (Berry 2003). Over the past 10 years, housing and urban policy discourse has highlighted a long-term decline in housing affordability in Australia and there is a general agreement that those on low and moderate incomes are the worst affected (National Housing Strategy 1991). This is a trend that has been developing since the mid-20th Century, although after World War II Australians were reported to have enjoyed high rates of home ownership and relatively low housing costs. This was a circumstance made possible through access to cheap and plentiful land for urban development; the evolution of a specialist housing finance sector; and significant tax subsidies for owner occupation (Beer 2004). However since the mid-1960s, homeownership has remained relatively static which indicates declining affordability within the private rental sector. Between 1952 and 1972 the Consumer Price Index indicated an increase in housing hosts of over 100 percent, which was largely due to the rising price of land, building construction costs and interest rates (Granger 1977). In the mid-to-late 1980s there was a further decline in housing affordability in Australia which had a particular impact on low-income groups (Mowbray 1993). It is no coincidence that during this time the demand for mobile homes and caravans increased, as those who were unable to access the market had little alternative than to seek cheaper forms of accommodation provided by facilities such as caravan parks or boarding houses. Ironically, the Maher Report found that many caravan park residents believed that by purchasing a caravan or mobile home they would eventually be able to afford a deposit for a house by selling the caravan at a later date. This, however, never eventuated as it was the land they were renting which increased in value, while the non-durable dwelling depreciated and offered little by way of an investment or re-sale value (as discussed in Chapter 1).


40

More recently, and despite an overall period of sustained economic growth, housing has become less affordable due to the disproportionate distribution of income and wealth. This trend can be attributed to numerous changes in society, such as an increase in the number of smaller households which often have lower household incomes; rising incomes among those in secure work; and stagnant incomes for those in low-paid casual employment. “…the changing nature of the housing market means that affordable and adequate accommodation for rent in the private sector is becoming increasingly difficult to find and hold onto” (Morris et al 2005, 245). In terms of the increase in house prices, the reasons vary and include economic, political and social factors. These are summarised in Figure 3.1

Figure 3.1: Factors Contributing to the Increase in House Prices

Short Term Factors Institutional Factors Long Term Factors

Demography Falls in interest rates Financial deregulation Aging, growth of single person and dual income households, general population growth and spatial concentration in capital cities has led to pressure on housing supply.

Increased investment demand for owner occupiers and investors/landlords seeking return and future capital gains.

Deregulation led to a greater demand for investment opportunities in the residential property sector in the mid-1990s and this led to a very competitive market.

Economic growth Land supply and planning Economic climate As incomes have increased people are prepared to pay more for housing, and this has created a competitive market.

More stringent planning controls reduced the capacity of some metropolitan markets to match the rising demand for housing.

Downward correction in the stock market in mid-2000 encouraged investors to shift from equities into other assets, including rental properties.

Wealth levels and distribution Government taxes and charges Investment demand Increased inequalities in the distribution of economic growth reinforced housing demand and increased prices.

The demand for housing is encouraged by a range of taxes and charges which have had an impact on the demand and supply of the housing market.

Increased demand for investment properties contributed to the rise in land price.

Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from Berry and Dalton 2004; Berry 2005.

The disproportionate increase of income in relation to the price of housing from 1980 to 2003 created a notable ‘affordability gap’. Figure 3.2 shows that over this period of time the median price of housing in Australia increased far more rapidly than the average weekly wage increase. This indicates that it is now more difficult to enter the property market than it has been previously.


41

Figure 3.2: Weekly Wage versus Median House Price in Australia (1980 – 2003)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 2000 2002 2003 1998 19961994 19921980

Average individual weekly wage (after tax) Australian median house price

Incr

ease

sin

ce 1

980

(%)

$135

Source: Wedgwood 2006; raw data from Wilkinson 2005. Housing costs began to grow rapidly relative to income in the mid-1980s. In 1987 there was a sharp increase in the Australian median house price and the property market generally, which was likely attributable to the recession at the time which resulted in inflation of the property market. This stabilised in the early 1990s but uniformly increased over a period of 10 years. By 2003 there had been an increase of 588.60 percent in the median house price in Australia. In contrast, the basic individual weekly wage after tax rose by 219.3 percent. What this figure does not show is that between 1985 and 2003 the proportion of low-rent dwellings in the market fell by 15 percent and between 2001 and 2003 the cost of the least expensive quintile of properties doubled in value (Berry 2005). This is alarming because in June 2005, 883,000 Australian households were in the bottom two income quintiles (Wade 2006) and it suggests that the combination of the lack of affordable housing and low incomes may have forced this vulnerable group to seek alternative forms of accommodation, including dwellings in caravan parks. Affordability in Sydney

In Sydney, house prices peaked in mid-2003 and although the rate of growth has since slowed, the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA 2006) reports that Sydney’s median sale price rose 1.1 percent

$53,300

$367,000

$431


42

in the year to September 2006. Over the same period, housing affordability fell by 9.4 percent and was 22.5 percent lower than in 2005. Despite the recent steadying of the market, Sydney is becoming increasingly unaffordable and home ownership is declining for first home buyers in particular, with Sydney’s median house price now being more than $500,000 (REIA 2006). 3.3 LACK OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION

For many people a caravan park is often the only affordable accommodation available. "They are living in caravan parks because they have nowhere else to live…This is not tourist caravan parks we're talking about, but what you would call a ghetto caravan park of mobile homes. It's a form of bottom-of-the-heap housing" (O’Dwyer 2005, 78). Government initiative has instituted. The ‘deinstitutionalisation’ of people with mental and physical disabilities since the 1960s has meant that these groups have had difficulty accessing opportunities in the private market due to lack of finances or discrimination. As a result there has been an increase in demand for caravan park accommodation, which conveniently make available furnished ‘dwellings’. Rhonda Burton, resident spokesperson and long-term resident at Casa Paloma Caravan Park in Leppington explained that the pending closure of the park will have dire consequences of the existing residents. “People in here don’t have the money to rent somewhere outside of the park, they’ve got no chance in the world of ever being given the opportunity to rent. The thing is, once they say they live here they are discriminated against, they have gone into a real estate agent and been told ‘sorry we haven’t got anything available’“ (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). In the Maher Report of 1979 the Deputy General Manager of the Housing Commission of NSW, Bernard Bartels, concluded that ‘the very fact the people were in a caravan would constitute a housing need (Maher 1979, 633). Although the Report recommended that caravan parks were unsuitable for permanent residency, it failed to provide suggestions for an alternative for those households already established in the parks. It also reported that if, at the time of publication, one-quarter of caravan park residents successfully applied for federal government-funded public housing, the waiting list would double at a time when there was already an 18 month to five year waiting list. Although it is almost 30 years since the publication of the Maher Report, the situation that exists now is not dissimilar. Despite the growing commentary surrounding the use of caravan parks for permanent residency and the recognition of the need for other forms of low-cost housing, there currently appears to be no solution or strategy to alleviate the situation. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare


43

estimated that between 1986 and 1996, which was a period during which caravan park numbers significantly increased, the number of low-cost rental dwellings declined 28 percent, from 246,800 to 164,000. During the same period the proportion of private tenants in the bottom two income quintiles in housing stress rose almost 10 percent (Powall and Withers 2004). This placed increased pressure on governments to intervene and provide a greater level of assistance for households under housing stress. This has proven to be a task beyond existing capabilities, as discussed below. Public Housing

Historically and currently, the demand for government-supplied housing has continued to exceed supply. Public housing was established with the intention to provide accommodation for every individual who was deemed to be in need, however it was originally difficult for unemployed people to access public housing, as the government prioritised the provision for skilled workers employed in industries in the areas surrounding the housing. The scheme has since declined to such an extent to become welfare housing (Paris 1993). The reconfiguration of public housing policy during the Menzies era saw a significant proportion of existing stock sold to current tenants and this was ultimately the start of the sector’s decline (Mackenzie 2003). Since that time it has become increasingly difficult to access, primarily due to a reduction in the building of public housing and more stringent allocation procedures. The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) reported in 2002 that there were 221,313 people on the public housing waiting list, equating to a waiting period of approximately 12 years for those people without priority placements (that is those aged over 80 and who have medical problems). The stock dropped from 6.1 percent of all housing in Australia in 2002, to 5.1 percent in 2003 and it is estimated that between 1994 and 2004 government funding for Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) was reduced by 54 percent. In addition to the rationing of available public housing stock and the lengthening of waiting lists of eligible public tenants, the government is progressively selling public dwellings to private buyers, resulting in overall stock levels not being maintained and failure to match the future demand (Berry 2003). Furthermore, effective opportunities to rent public housing in Australia have fallen by approximately 20 percent and in NSW there were just over 128,000 dwelling units owned by the Department of Housing in 2005 (Wilkinson 2005). These factors combine to make a fairly dire situation, where individuals on waiting lists may not live long enough to receive assistance.


44

Commonwealth Rent Assistance

Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) was established by the Federal Government to resolve the problems associated with high rentals, low affordability and insufficient public housing stock. The scheme provides rental assistance to low income households and individuals in the private housing market. However, that scheme has been widely criticised for failing to adequately provide for those relying on it (for example in Berry 2005 and Caulfield 2000). There are approximately one-million Australians receiving rent assistance under CRA, however there is currently no acknowledgement of the inequalities in rent between cities and locations generally. In 2004 the maximum amount received by any Australian was $95 per fortnight, while the average rent for a one bedroom apartment was $260 per week (Berry 2005). This was confirmed by research conducted by the Affordable Housing National Research Consortium in two separate years (1994 and 2000). The results, which were published in 2003, found that CRA was failing to reduce housing stress. In Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide rent assistance entitlements did not allow low-income earners who were private tenants, to rent average-value dwellings of any size in any suburb in the respective metropolitan area without entering housing stress (Berry and Hall 2001). Boarding Houses

Boarding houses are becoming victim to gentrification and adaptive re-use, which is an emerging trend that threatens the future of this form of medium to long-term accommodation (Morris et al. 2005). This highlights the necessity for government legislation to protect and retain existing low-cost rental accommodation for low-income households and other disadvantaged groups. Measures such as SEPP

10 (Retention of Low Cost Rental Accommodation) in NSW were introduced to ensure that low-cost private rental stock remains available in the future, however the Policy has had limited success. Its deficiency lies in its inability to adequately protect the overall number of low-cost dwellings, because it is structured in a way that enables developers to provide a monetary contribution to local government rather than replace every housing unit lost through development. This means there could potentially be 10 low-cost rental properties lost to every one replaced 3.4 SUMMARY

As discussed in this chapter, the reliance on caravan parks by a small but significant proportion of the Australian population is the result of several factors including a lack of strategic planning; the failure of


45

the property market to provide for all income levels; and a disproportionate variation in land prices and income distribution. The inadequate supply of affordable housing is having a particular impact on the lower end of the private rental market where the supply is not catering for the chronic excess in demand. Adding to the situation is that these factors have not been offset by adequate government intervention such as the provision of public housing and rent assistance, while other forms of low-cost accommodation such as boarding houses are also in short supply. In reality, caravan parks are not an ideal alternative to low-cost housing as they have been proven to be a very unprofitable investment. Housing that is comparatively cheap does not necessarily make it easier for low-income households to access and in the case of caravans and mobile homes, they have the potential to leave residents in an undesirable financial position. Notwithstanding this, the fact remains that they are being increasingly relied upon and there needs to be a focus on protecting existing residents. This is proving to be progressively more difficult as the supply of caravan parks is starting to diminish across the country, to be discussed in Chapter 4.


46

C H A P T E R F O U R :

T H E D E M I S E O F U R B A N C A R A V A N P A R K S

This chapter discusses the high rate of closure of caravan parks in recent years in Australia. This is a trend which is threatening the future of a critical source of housing for a vulnerable sector of the population. Existing research and information collected from various organisations is analysed in this chapter and used to identify the caravan parks in the Sydney Metropolitan Area which have recently ceased to operate, as well as those which are under immediate threat of closure. The reasons for closure, which relate primarily to development for economic reasons, are also investigated. It should be noted that the data includes both figures collected by the ABS as well as independent research conducted by PAVS and although there are variances between the two sets of data, the significance and rapidly emerging nature of the trend is undeniable. 4.1 THE EXTENT OF CARAVAN PARK CLOSURE

The loss of permanent accommodation provided by caravan parks is a relatively recent trend which has gained momentum in the last five years. The closures, which have occurred in both capital cities and non-metropolitan areas, started to receive academic, political and media attention in the early part of this decade, following the closure of a significant number of non-metropolitan caravan parks in the late 1990s. Although the introduction of legislation permitting permanent residency in the mid-1980s resulted in a small initial decrease in caravan park numbers in Australia, numbers generally remained stable from the 1970s until the mid-1990s. However in January 2004, Connor (2004) reported that seven caravan parks in NSW had closed since the beginning of 2001; 10 were in the process of closing; eight had lost long-term accommodation and 14 were earmarked for redevelopment. This equated to a total of 39 parks, and Connor anticipated that there will continue to be a consistent loss of housing for at least 2,700 park residents annually. Figure 4.1 provides a numerical and graphical summary of caravan park closures in Australia based on ABS data. Note that this figure is indicative only, as until the ABS reviews collection methods, definitions and questions pertaining to caravan parks, the Census will remain a fairly unreliable tool for analysis (Connor and Ferns 2002). Nonetheless, it is the most comprehensive database currently available.

Chapter Four: The Demise of Urban Caravan Parks

47

Figure 4.1 shows that it has only been since 2001 that a significant reduction in caravan park numbers has occurred, and that this trend is prevalent in all states and territories. Interestingly, however, of the 52 caravan parks in Australia that closed between March 2005 and March 2006, 21 were located in NSW.

Figure 4.1: The Approximate* Loss of Caravan Parks in Australia (1987 – 2006)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

No. C

arav

an P

ark

Esta

blis

hmen

ts

NSW / ACT 829 802 793 815 552 530 583 591 595 593 416 407

Queensland 630 625 614 620 347 336 South Australia 197 211 215 220 149 145 Western Australia 284 207 318 322 206 202 Tasmania 70 67 73 74 47 46 Northern Territory 56 79 77 84 53 52

1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2006

Victoria

2,649 2,682 2,685 2,728 1,770 1,718 TOTAL

A

Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from ABS 2001a; ABS 2000; ABS 2006.

* Note that due to the ABS data discrepancies discussed in Chapter 1, the numbers provided in this Figure are an approximation only and are likely to be significantly greater.

The above figures highlight some important trends in the caravan park industry. For example, the significant reduction in caravan park numbers in 1992 (shown as ‘A’ in Figure 4.1) corresponds to the


48

year that legislation was introduced permitting permanent residency in this state. It is likely that those parks not meeting minimum standards under the legislation were forced to close. Also evident in Figure 4.1 is that since 2001 there has been a notable reduction in caravan park numbers in all states and territories. This is thought to be the combined result of a surge in land prices and the fact the ‘life cycle’ of many caravan parks was coming to an end (to be discussed in section 4.2 of this chapter). Figure 4.2 shows that there is a clear correlation between the median house price in Australia, which began to rise significantly in 2001, and the noteable reduction in the number of caravan parks which essentially began in the same year. Regardless, it is significant that in 2001 there were 1,079 more occupied dwellings in caravan parks than there were in 1986 (as discussed in Chapter 2), yet the supply of this form of housing was considerably reduced between 1986 and 2006. Figure 4.2: The Median House Price in Australia (1993 – 2006)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Med

ian

Hous

e Pr

ice

NSW / ACT

Queensland

South Australia

Western Australia

Tasmania

Northern Territory

1993 1995 1997 2001 2003 2006

Victoria

1999 2005

Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from Australian Property Monitors (2006).

Caravan Park Closures in Non-Metropolitan NSW

The majority of caravan parks closures and loss of sites in NSW have occurred on the central, mid-north and north coasts of NSW, in areas such as Gosford, Tuncurry, Forster, Taree, Great Lakes and Ballina; and also in western NSW, for example in Orange and Little Hartley. PAVS (2005) reports that 15 caravan parks outside of the Sydney Metropolitan Area closed for the purpose of redevelopment between


49

2001 and 2005. All but one of those provided housing for permanent tenants, meaning over 1000 people were displaced including retirees, families and disabled or elderly individuals with no housing alternative. Correspondingly, at least a further 400 permanent sites were lost during the same period to make way for upmarket, resort-style tourist accommodation. Tourism Research Australia figures indicate that the demand for caravan holidays is at an all time high, with approximately 9.2 million people staying in them on a short-term basis in the 2003-2004 financial year compared with 8.4 million in 1999-2000 (Russell 2006). The replacement of permanent dwellings in caravan parks with multi-bedroom cabins reflects this trend, which has resulted in at least another 10 parks earmarked for conversion in NSW alone. “At one stage everyone used to holiday in caravan parks, then they became not seen as an ideal place to holiday. Over time what’s happened is that the parks have included self-contained cabins in their accommodation. These are rented out overnight for the same amount of money that a park owner would get from a resident in a week” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). Caravan Park Closures in Sydney

In 2001 it became apparent that caravan park closure was not a trend isolated to traditional tourist centres outside of capital cities. Five applications for redevelopment were received in relatively quick and unprecedented succession between 2001 and 2005 in the local government areas of Blacktown, Hornsby, Fairfield and Sutherland. As the cumulative impact of the loss of accommodation is becoming apparent, there has been growing concern from industry experts and welfare groups. The closure of caravan parks in capital cities is of more concern than the same process in non-metropolitan areas, because in capital cities they have evolved from being highly segmented (providing both a tourism and residential function) into what are commonly referred to as ‘residential parks’ or ‘residential estates’. Capital cities provide less than one-tenth of the total number of caravan parks in Australia (ABS 2006b), however they account for a disproportionately high amount of total accommodation lost through this form of housing. PAVS (2005) reported that between November 2001 and December 2005, 48 percent of individual sites in NSW that were lost through caravan park closures were in Sydney. These were not replaced in any capacity by similarly priced accommodation. During the same period, nine new caravan parks were built in areas outside of Sydney, specifically to provide housing for retirees, workers and families (PAVS 2005), however in the Sydney Metropolitan Area there have been no new parks built for at least 15 years.


50

Figure 4.3 shows the extent of caravan park closure in Sydney between 2001 and 2006, based on existing and independent research conducted as part of this thesis. The establishments shown as green dots represent caravan parks which do not appear to be under immediate threat of closure, while those represented by red dots are those which have closed during this period. The caravan parks represented with an orange dot are deemed to be under a real threat of closure due to a pending development application, or because a portion of the land has already been sold for redevelopment purposes (for example Parklea Gardens and the Grand Pines in Sans Souci). Figure 4.4 provides more detail on the caravan parks in Sydney which have closed or are in the process of being redeveloped. Each of the closures has had an impact on a large number of people who are in the lower stratum of income earners and who lost their home without sufficient compensation. For this reason it comes as no surprise that the closures were highly controversial. This will discussed further in Chapter 5.


51

Figure 4.3: The Status of Caravan Parks in Sydney (2001 – 2006)

Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from PAVS 2006, PAVS 2004 and author’s own independent research.


52

Figure 4.4: Caravan Park Closures in Sydney (2001 – 2006)

Name of Caravan Park Length of Operation Reason for Closure No. of Permanent Sites Prior to Closure

Permanent Residents Affected

General Description of Residents (Owner)

La Mancha, Berowra 1973- 2003 Subdivision into 33 residential lots

Between 100 – 150 sites any one time

80 Workers; the elderly; disabled persons (Masterbuilt)

Sundowner, Parklea Over 1000 Workers; the elderly disabled persons

1989 - 2001 Subdivision into 167 residential lots

330 (predominately 2 and 3 bedroom manufactured

and mobile homes) (Meriton Apartments) Lansdowne, Canley Vale Over 600 Workers; families; the elderly;

disabled persons 1954 - 2005 Subdivision into 69

residential lots and new roads

275 (predominately 2 and 3 bedroom manufactured

and mobile homes) (Meriton Apartments)

Silver Beach, Kurnell 33 40 Workers; the elderly; disabled

persons 1982 –2004 Proposed subdivision

into 17 lots and new road

(Jefferson Robinson)

Cronulla Carapark, Caringbah Unknown Retail development 20 30 Workers; families (unknown) Casa Paloma, Leppington 1972 – 2006 Residential

Development 196 280 Families

(Berlyn Properties) (application pending)

Source: Wedgwood 2006; data from PAVS 2006, Porter 2005, Meriton Apartments 2005; council files accessed under the Freedom of Information Act (NSW)


53

4.2 THE REASONS FOR THE CLOSURE OF URBAN CARAVAN PARKS

Planned Obsolescence

Many Caravan parks were originally established with the intention of selling the land at a later date when it became more valuable and this is known as ‘land banking’. Mackenzie (2003) documented that for low setup costs and without the need for standard development consent, a developer could purchase land that was unprofitable and unsuitable for residential or other commercial uses (including land that was adversely zoned or subject to height restrictions) but that could be used economically as a caravan park. In 1980 an employee of the NSW Auditor General’s Department, Bruce Noble, said the land on which caravan parks were located could be “redeveloped to more intensive purposes at little cost once the land value has exceeded the value of the park” (Noble 1980, 147). “It was actually an investment plan they (the NSW Auditor Generals Department at the time) promoted to the industry. People could purchase land in areas which hadn’t been reached by urban or coastal sprawl, or there might have been some kind of development restriction applicable to the land, and establish a caravan park. In those days, you only needed a couple of hundred thousand to get it up and running, and now these people have a multi-million dollar property, as well as the money to fight in the Land and Environment Court to overcome zoning and other restrictions” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). It seems that caravan parks were never established with the intention of being a long-term business. In 2003, Reed and Greenhalgh expressed “serious concern about the age of Australia’s caravan parks and the implications from the effect of obsolescence. It has been shown that most of Australia’s parks were built before 1979 and constructed to cater for the holiday expectations of that era. As the infrastructure of a caravan park has a life expectancy of approximately 25 years, properties that have not been refurbished or are not planning to, are in serious danger of becoming uninteresting and stale” (2003, 6). Conversely, Stubbs (2006) states that if caravan park owners have the money or access to finance to redevelop a park, then they would also have the money or access to finance to replace any depreciated items, therefore ensuring the future of the existing use. To say a park has reached the end of its economic life because maintenance is required is simply a way for park owners to justify their desire for profit and their rationale for redevelopment


54

The Nature of the Development Process

Development generally occurs in response to changes in the demand and supply of land resources, with the value and use of land changing over time as a result of market forces and the influence of externalities (Harvey and Jowsey 2003). In the last decade in Australia, urban growth has resulted in a significant increase in the price of land, and as the demand for property has risen, certain uses have become obsolete. In capital cities, caravan parks, along with land uses such as drive-in theatres, are no longer regarded as highly profitable or required industries and because many of them have been operating for over 30 years, the land can be sold and used more profitably than if the existing use was refurbished at a significant economic cost. Given the size of the land on which they are located, caravan parks are currently among the most underdeveloped and desirable parcels of privately owned land in the Sydney Metropolitan Area. “Over time the demand for land resources changes, brought about by changes in the size, income and tastes of the population, the rate or growth of economic activity, methods of transport, techniques of production and distribution. On the supply side, existing buildings wear out or become less suitable to present uses…development is the response to such changes” (Harvey and Jowsey 2003, 81).

The majority of caravan parks in Sydney are located on what was previously the urban-rural fringe and as land in the north-west and south-west growth corridors has been developed, they have become a non-conforming land use. The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted by Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd to Fairfield Council as part of their development application for the subdivision of the land formerly occupied by the Lansdowne Caravan Park in Canley Vale, stated that: “The park has reached the end of its economic life as substantial investment was required to maintain the park at reasonable standards…During the time that the park has been operational, the area is which it is located has changed considerably. Rather than being on Sydney’s semi rural fringe, the park is now located in a developed urban area” (Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd 2005, 1). Developers are keen to capitalise on the unearned increment associated with the surrounding development of housing and motorways. The following aerial photograph shows the location of the existing Parklea Village Caravan Park and the former Sundowner Caravan Park in the Blacktown Local Government Area. Similar to Lansdowne, these once operated in a predominately rural area and provided housing for workers and disabled persons. Sundowner closed in 2001 when a development application was approved for the construction of 167 residential lots. This followed the completion of the Landcom Development


55

‘Stanhope Gardens’ which is located directly adjacent to the former caravan park, and would have undoubtedly been regarded as a more complementary land use. Parklea Village remains under pressure for redevelopment following the sale and redevelopment of one section, which previously contained 100 permanent sites. The image shows that both sites are surrounded by relatively recent residential development, which is part of the growth of north-western Sydney.

Source: RP Data 2006

Development Potential - ‘Highest and Best Use’

The HBU paradigm is the theoretical base on which market-led approaches to land use change are made. According to Harvey (2000), development is necessary to facilitate the efficient use of land resources and typically occurs to ensure the most profitable use of land. While it assumes that the highest and best use is also the highest and best legal land use in terms of zoning, the theory is based around the idea that the profitability of a parcel of land is determined by its physical characteristics.

The portion of Parklea Village Caravan Park sold for redevelopment

The site of the former Sundowner Caravan Park

Parklea Village Caravan Park

Stanhope Gardens


56

Because caravan parks operate on large portions of land that are typically level and undeveloped in terms of permanent structures, they are highly desirable to developers. Accordingly, in urban areas they are often regarded as under-capitalised parcels of land, particularly in urban areas. Since the beginning of this decade, house prices have risen worldwide, with prices in Australia rising by more than 50 percent in real terms (The Economist 2003). In order to maximise profit, best use of land continually needs to be re-evaluated and it is understandable that landowners consider future demand for alternative uses, particularly if operating costs exceed or barely fall below revenue. “Redevelopment takes place when the present value of the expected flow of future net returns from the existing use of the land resources becomes less than the capital value of the cleared site” (Harvey and Jowsey 2003, 105). The application of the HBU theory to caravan parks facilitates consideration of the balance between the worth of an establishment as an on-going business and its land value in monetary terms. What ‘best use’ does not consider is the social impact of different land uses, as it is purely an economic assessment. The approach assumes that all impacts can be measured by a single monetary ‘yardstick’ (Evans 2004) and by doing so the social impacts and repercussions fail to be evaluated. “The real money in the industry is always in the capital appreciation of the land. the big money in parks is always in the increase in the asset value of the land and a lot of park owners will say, whether it is true or not, that a resident of a caravan park only has about a 20 or 30 year lifestyle, but they never tell anyone that when they are moving in there” (John Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). Hallett (1979) suggests that a reliance on a theory such as HBU can lead to seriously unrealistic and misguided conclusions as it does not consider historical perspective or industry knowledge. In essence, a site’s profitability should not be the central consideration when assessing applications which affects people’s housing. For this reason, assessment of applications concerning the redevelopment of caravan parks for alternative use requires strict consideration of the provisions of Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA), including consideration of the social and economic impacts. The housing needs of long-term caravan park residents appear to have been given less priority than the compliance of the proposed development with numerical and statutory controls in each of the caravan parks in Sydney which have closed in recent years (shown in red in Figure 4.2). In every case, the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the applications argued that the


57

social impact (that is, the loss of affordable housing stock) was offset by the economic gain associated with the redevelopment. Having developed an understanding of the role played by caravan parks and the ‘gap’ they fill in the urban housing hierarchy, it is difficult not to question the validity of the HBU paradigm. Economic theory provides that all land owners attempt to maximise profits and output. “…every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can…he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which is no part of his intention” (Smith 1960, 400). Planning Decisions

The initial yet unremarkable decrease in caravan park numbers in the late 1980s may have been attributable to the commencement of new standards associated with tenancy legislation and the failure or reluctance of park owners to meet these requirements due to the associated costs. Recently however, the changing role of caravan parks has created an opportunity for landowners to realise the development potential of their land based on the claim of existing use rights for residential purposes. With the exception of the former ‘La Mancha’ Caravan Park in Berowra which existed on land zoned Residential A, all of the former caravan parks identified in red in Figure 4.4 were never intended to be used for residential purposes. They were all zoned for either private or regional recreation, however the consent authority had difficulty arguing against the claims of existing use rights, as under NSW law permanent residents were permitted to live in caravan parks, even when the use of land for residential purposes was prohibited under a local Environmental Planning Instrument. This loophole has paved the way for all caravan park sites in Sydney, regardless of their classification, to apply for existing use rights and subdivide. For example, Lansdowne at Canley Vale was zoned ‘6(b) Private Recreation’ under the provisions of the Fairfield LEP, and although residential uses were prohibited, the development application was approved by the Land and Environment Court. The Court found that existing use rights applied to the land: “There is an existing use of the land…as defined in s 106 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which would permit the grant of consent to use the allotments proposed to be created for the purpose of dwellings and/or dwelling houses or any other from of residential development” (Pain 2004, 20).


58

4.3 SUMMARY

Despite affordable housing being in short supply in Australia, the low-cost accommodation provided in caravan parks is rapidly disappearing. It is a fairly recent trend which is primarily influenced by rising land prices and the desire to maximise profit, as many parks were established by entrepreneurs over 40 years ago with the intent to make a profit once the land became more valuable. Since 2001 there has been a notable reduction in caravan park numbers in all states and territories, and this is thought to be the combined result of a surge in land prices and the fact the ‘life cycle’ of many caravan parks is coming to an end. In Sydney alone, five applications for redevelopment were received in relatively quick and unprecedented succession between 2001 and 2005 and all of these parks were accommodating permanent residents at the time. The implications of the loss of caravan parks cannot be underestimated and the reasons why will be discussed in Chapter Five.


59

C H A P T E R F I V E :

T H E I M P L I C A T I O N S O F C A R A V A N P A R K C L O S U R E S

This chapter details the broad implications of caravan park closures. The impacts can be far-reaching as they usually extend beyond the quantitative reduction in low-cost housing stock. While the immediate and irreplaceable loss of the unique housing opportunities provided through caravan parks is alarming, it is the intangible loss of social networks that has incited the concern of industry experts and residents of parks threatened by imminent closure. This chapter presents the viewpoint of the displaced resident as well as the land owner, who arguably does not need to take responsibility for the human impacts associated with the development of a parcel of land. Also discussed are the shortfalls of existing legislation which fail to provide displaced households with adequate monetary compensation for the loss of their physical home, nor for the intangible costs arising from the disintegration of their social networks. 5.1 THE PERMANENT LOSS OF LOW-COST HOUSING STOCK

The closure and redevelopment of caravan parks creates a void in the low-cost housing market. Each park closure creates immediate and substantial pressure on local housing, and highlights the difficulties that many residents face in accessing the traditional housing system (Greenhalgh 2002). The most concerning aspect of the closure process is that the housing stock is generally not being replaced and in many cases over 100 homes are lost at once (for example at Lansdowne in Canley Vale, La Mancha at Berowra and Sundowner in Parklea). “It is a loss of forever…in any park that closes down you are going to be losing affordable housing sites and they will never be replaced” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). The reduction of this accommodation also has a secondary impact on other established households in the locality as it places significant upward pressure on rents. In NSW, growth in available rental stock between 1996 and 2001 occurred solely in the top 20 percent of the private rental housing market, whilst there was a drop in rental housing in the bottom four quintiles (Yates et al. 2004). In 2001 in Sydney specifically, there was a shortage of 11,000 rental dwellings for low-income households and the NSW Department of Planning has indicated that this trend is likely to continue, as the long-term prediction is for declining amounts of stock in the lower quintiles of the private rental market (Mowbray 2006). There are also important implications for employment opportunities and

Chapter Five: The Implications of Caravan Park Closure

60

labour mobility, as itinerant workers may not be able to access private rental in an area once a caravan park ceases to operate, due to increased demand and financial constraints. “Ultimately, the lack of affordable housing in a locality is a drain on the efficiency of the local and metropolitan economy, and restricting economic development” (Stubbs 2006, 12). The closure of caravan parks places increased pressure on the public housing system where, as explained in Chapter 3, in some cases there already exists a 12-year waiting period and the eligibility criteria is becoming increasingly stringent. Given that it is estimated that 65,000 to 151,000 people currently live in caravan parks in Australia, it is of serious concern that a significant proportion of them have the potential to place further strain on the demand for public housing as more parks close. There is a notable void in the research conducted on caravan parks and the housing destination of those exiting them, however according to John Mackenzie (2006, pers. comm.), only a fortunate minority will establish new tenancies in the private rental market. Those remaining will have a very difficult time as they do not have sufficient income to relocate to another park and are not in a position to rent or buy alternative accommodation. There is often no alternative but to wait for government assistance. In the short term, a number of residents may rely on family and friends however this is often not an option due to their age, the level of care they require, and possibly because of their history which could be tarnished with unemployment or crime. Sadly, it is possible that a number of them may face the prospect of homelessness, as they simply have no other alternative. Rhonda Burton, resident of Casa Paloma Caravan Park, explained that many residents at the park have already relocated once or twice following the closure of other caravan parks in Sydney and are very concerned about their future housing prospects once the park closes in late 2006. “We have to be realistic…development will go ahead and we can’t really stop it. There is no available housing, there are no priority homes or emergency homes. We have to go on a government waiting list and we have to wait for over 10 years like everyone else” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). 5.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS

The Loss of Home

It is clear that the true value of caravan park living for many residents is the resultant community and support networks. The impact of a park’s closure therefore extends beyond the quantifiable loss of low-


61

cost housing stock. It results in tremendous hardship for individuals who are typically already disadvantaged in terms of income, intellect or physically ability (Stubbs 2006; Volka 2001; Wensing et al 2003). Residents who own their own caravan, mobile home or manufactured home are likely to lose their only significant asset because there is either no alternative location for it, or the age and condition of the dwelling prevents it from being transportable. “Home, meaning the house, the neighbourhood and the feeling of belonging, is the centre of our lives…losing the feeling of home is devastating, the physical implications far-reaching and the psychological impact significant" (Thompson 2001). The escalating rate of caravan park closures has created fierce competition for sites and it is unlikely that displaced residents will find similar accommodation (Stubbs 2006). Furthermore, the gentrification of many of the remaining parks entails the provision of manufactured housing that usually has to be purchased outright (refer photographs below comparing older-style dwellings available in caravan parks with more contemporary manufactured housing over the page). Most gentrified parks no longer accommodate traditional caravans and mobile homes because many of them were constructed over 30 years ago and simply cannot be moved; or they fail to comply with current building standards. “Although they are classed as relocatable, they have been on the ground too many years to be relocated. You really need near-new to be able to do that. They are moveable to an extent, but they are not finished off in the factory, they are always finished off on-site, meaning there is always damage. The older they get, the harder it is to move them. Sometimes they never really go back together because they are a sealed unit” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.).

Source: Wedgwood 2006 Older-Style Caravans and Mobile Homes at Casa Paloma, Leppington


62

Source: Wedgwood 2006 Contemporary Manufactured Housing at ‘Four Lanterns’ in Leppington

In addition to the economic loss associated with losing a home, it is important to emphasise that the value an individual places on their home is not only a physical location but also a “matrix of social relations” (Valentine 2001, 71) that cannot be disregarded. “Simon (a resident at Casa Paloma) will say to you, I am not going anywhere, this is my home I will chain myself to the verandah, I am not going anywhere. They are just in self-denial because they know that’s just not realistic. But that’s just how we feel – they are not going to take our homes away from us” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). Valentine (2001) found that a home provides security, privacy, stability and identity and its importance increases as a person ages and becomes more home-centred. “Older people tend to be more concerned about the use of their house rather than its monetary value” (Valentine 2001). Rhonda Burton explained that the older residents at Casa Paloma are the group most concerned about the park’s closure and the need to relocate. “I am only 60 and I don’t like moves, so I know what an 80 year old would feel like – at that age they just do not like change” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). The Disintegration of Community Networks

Caravan parks are not simply providers of affordable housing. Many researchers (Connor 2004; Connor and Ferns 2002; Greenhalgh and Connor 2002; Horin 2004; Jopson 2006; Stuart et al 2005; Stubbs 2006) have documented that their unique environment creates the opportunity for residents to be part of a community, particularly for those living alone and without families. Secomb (2000) explains


63

that a caravan park ‘neighbourhood’ is more than the dwellings within it and regardless of the physical setting, the catalyst of the neighbourhood is the human element. The atmosphere of solidarity is thought to develop from a combination of the close living environment and the demographic profile of the residents, and this was evident to Secomb when she visited numerous caravan parks as part of her research. The disintegration of community, resulting from the closure of caravan parks, can be devastating to residents who strongly rely on the support network. In his capacity as Coordinator of PAVS, John Mackenzie (2006, pers. comm.) has spoken to a large number of displaced residents and his experience has found that the relocation process can lead to fear and loneliness; the loss of existing employment; and the loss of established family, social, medical and educational connections. “Some of the residents have been living in the same park for 15-17 years and they are the ones who are really broken hearted because they have established themselves in the area. They have close friends, they have their medical services and shopping facilities in the area. To leave the area after that length of time is going to be very difficult…They don’t want to think about it” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). Displacement and the uncertainly with regards to relocation have shown to cause stress and ill-health, particularly to the elderly residents. Social impact statements submitted to Sydney councils regarding the closure for caravan parks (Harvie 2003; Porter 2005; Stubbs 2006) have recognised that residents visit doctors or hospitals in close proximity of their home. They also have a network of people who care for them within the park. “They are frightened because at the moment if they get ill or if we don’t see them walking around we will go and knock on the door and see if they are okay. If they go somewhere else, even if they are lucky enough to get into a housing commission, they won’t have someone they know come and call on them if they get sick. It’s just not there and they are frightened of being on their own. Yet they are still too independent to want to go into a nursing home. It is a real worry for them and it’s telling on their health. All of them have been suffering because if it. There was one guy who is 80 and he has already been moved on twice. So his health is under a lot of stress” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). 5.3 INSUFFICIENT COMPENSATION

Existing state and territory legislation was developed in response to the changing role of caravan parks and concern surrounding the tenancy rights of residents. However, the various acts and policies


64

generally fail to comprehensively protect residents from hardship and exist solely as vehicles for consumer protection. In NSW, the grounds for compensation under the Residential Parks Act 1998 is limited and developers only need to compensate those residents who own their own dwelling and those whose dwelling can be relocated to another park. Unless it is required by the consent authority as a condition of development approval, there is no compensation payable for relocation to an alternative form of housing such as the private rental market, or for those people who rent both a site and a dwelling within a caravan park. A renter can be given 60 days notice to vacate the park regardless of their length of residency, while those who own their dwelling are given 12 months. “But at the end of the 12 months our questions still aren’t answered. What are we going to do with our homes? Where are we going to go? Are we going to walk away with all our money lost?” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). A common problem with the current system is that the Residential Parks Act assumes that residents know and understand their legal rights and are prepared to take action if the law is breached. However, Connor (2001) found there are a range of barriers preventing residents accessing their tenancy rights, including fear of the legal system; fear of losing the social acceptance of other residents and generating bad feelings between themselves and park management; fear of homelessness; or simply not knowing their rights. This means that residents who are renting a dwelling may leave a caravan park when instructed, without receiving the compensation to which they are entitled as part of development consent. Due to the reasons discussed in section 5.2, compensation does little more than cover the costs associated with transporting a dwelling to be destroyed. Stubbs (2006) explained that owners who are entitled to compensation for the relocation of their caravan or mobile home find the payment inadequate unless they are able to secure an alternative long-term site. Ultimately, many people lose their most valuable asset or accept an unreasonably low price for the re-sale value due to pressure or fear of leaving with nothing. The dwelling is of value in its current location but if there is nowhere to move it, the value rapidly declines and the dwelling changes from an asset to a liability. “There are park owners who take advantage of this and drive people out because they know the residents have got no option” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). Rhonda Burton is extremely concerned that when she is forced to leave Casa Paloma she will not receive adequate compensation for the mobile home she purchased 10 years ago. “We have asked and asked how much they will give us individually for our homes and we have received no response whatsoever. I mean there is no way in the world I am walking out the gate for $2000 and leaving a $40,000 home behind me” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.).


65

Another shortcoming in the Residential Parks Act 1998 is that compensation for damage resulting from the relocation of a caravan or mobile home cannot be in excess of the current value of the dwelling. Connor and Ferns (2002) report that it is very difficult to obtain a valuation for older dwellings and in many cases the value may be less that the damage incurred during a move. “They are so old that they will just fall apart and the compensation is limited to the value of the dwelling. If it is damaged during the relocation process the compensation is only paid for the nature of the dwelling, and none of them move without being damaged. Some park owners are quite happy to damage the dwellings because they know full well people can’t ask for compensation” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). As with all legislation covering caravan parks in Australia, the NSW Residential Parks Act only addresses the economic costs associated with park closure and does not quantify the social costs into a monetary value or the intangible costs resulting from an individual being forced to leave their site. “Compensation isn’t really a good word because what they were actually paying for is mainly to put your dwelling on the back of a truck and move it elsewhere. It doesn’t compensate you for the stress or the uncertainty, the loss of all your communal networks and many residents suffer from stress and ill-health caused by an uncertain housing future” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). Further, the Residential Parks Act does not compensate for the loss of an individual’s standard of living, even if they are forced to become homeless as a result of a park’s closure. “There are just amazing stories in each of these parks of people with psychiatric illnesses who bond. In one of the parks there is a 36 year old who has schizophrenia and has managed to save $10,000 to purchase his own dwelling. He is getting older and wanted his first home, for him this is his first experience of home ownership. Since he has been living in the caravan park he has also managed to pay off furniture, however if the park closes he may end up with nothing because of the way the legislation is structured” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). 5.4 LOSING THE ‘RIGHT’ TO HOUSING

It is important to mention that regardless of the economic and social costs experienced by residents involuntarily exiting caravan parks, the process results in a loss of an individual’s ‘right’ to their house. In Australia there appears to be the expectation that everyone should have access to housing, either through personal means or with assistance from the government. It is thought that without housing an adequate standard of living cannot be achieved and basic human rights - such as privacy, health,


66

employment opportunities, services such as health and education, security and independence - will be compromised (Sidoti 1996; Hartman 1998). The National Action Plan on Human Rights (NAP) is a human rights policy document which serves as a tool for evaluating Australia’s ‘vision’ and international human rights obligations. The Plan recognises and supports the right to an affordable, adequate and appropriate standard of living with particular reference to housing and stipulates that all state jurisdictions should assist people, particularly those on a low to moderate income, to access this (NAP 1997). Notwithstanding the intent of the NAP, it appears to provide a set of ideals rather than standards and is in desperate need of revision. As there have been significance changes in the property market and a decrease in public housing since the mid-1990s, there remains a clear need for improvement in Australia’s overall performance with regards to housing provision (Sidoti 1997). The housing ideal can no longer be assumed as housing shortages for low-income earners indicates that it is no longer realistic ‘on the ground’. This could be attributable to a lack of political and administrative will to commit the required resources to this growing dilemma. 5.5 THE PREROGATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER

Having already documented the implications of caravan closure for existing residents, consideration needs to be given to the prospective developer who, it could be argued, has every right to obtain the maximum return from the land, providing it is legally permitted. It may be unreasonable to assume that a developer should possess a degree of social and moral responsibility, as the shortcomings of the public housing system and the failure of the market to provide sufficient amounts of low-cost rental are hardly the responsibility of the individual land owner. As discussed in Chapter 4, many caravan parks were established with the intention to redevelop in the future in order to maximise profit, meaning the loss of accommodation at some stage was inevitable. The extent of the reliance on caravan parks as a form of housing could possibly have been avoided if residents were informed about the likelihood of future plans for development. For example, a number of residents of Casa Paloma Caravan Park in Leppington moved to the park less than two years ago, when the owner was attempting to sell the park and was aware that the current use of the site was to change. However in order to maintain revenue for as long as possible, no indication of this was given to existing and new residents.


67

The owner of a parcel of land has the right to use it for any lawful purpose and to decide whether or not this involves maximising the return on that land. Figure 5.1 assesses the viability of six caravan parks in Sydney prior to their closure, and demonstrates the extent of the possible variation in revenue resulting from redevelopment. This was achieved by calculating the approximate annual rental income for each business at the time of closure and comparing it with the estimated profit gained by subdividing the same portion of land. Notwithstanding that this table compares median dwelling prices without consideration to the costs associated with the development of land, it is clear that the operation of caravan parks in urban areas is neither the most profitable nor the best land use in situations where alternative land uses are permitted.

Figure 5.1: The Estimated Value of Land: Before and After Re-development

Estimated Value of Land after Subdivision

Name of Caravan Park Approximate Rental Income at Time of Closure

(average weekly rent x no. permanent sites x 52 weeks)

(current median dwelling price in Suburb x no. lots in subdivision)

$130 x 125 x 52 =$845,000 $510,000 x 33 = $16,830,000 La Mancha, Berowra

$160 x 330 x 52= $2,745,600 $255,000 x 167 = $42,585,000 Sundowner, Parklea

$155 x 274 x 52 = $2,198,040 $305,000 x 69 = $21,045,000 Lansdowne, Canley Vale

$ 155 x 33 x 52 = $265,980 $455, 000 x 17 = $7,735,000 Silver Beach, Kurnell

N/A Cronulla Carapark Unknown (retail development) (20 sites, most likely similar rent to

Silver Beach )

$90 x 196 x 52 = $917,280 Casa Paloma, Leppington N/A (development involves the construction

and sale of 256 new manufactured worth approximately $150,000 each )

Source: Wedgwood 2006, data from Harvie 2003; Meriton Apartments 2005; Porter 2005; Stubbs 2006; council files accessed under the Freedom of Information Act (NSW)


68

Although the land occupied by a caravan park may essentially be owned by one person, the fact remains that there are usually a large number of people living on it and any decision is bound to have extensive impacts. John Mackenzie explained that developers need to take more responsibility for the social and economic impacts of caravan park closures, because a large number of residents can be disrupted by such a significant change of use. He referred to the owners of Casa Paloma. “If they were going to redevelop, they should have told people before now. People have invested heaps of money and didn’t realise they were getting a lifestyle and not an investment. They don’t really have anywhere to go to get good advice about this. If they had known what the park’s eventual outcome was going to be when they moved in, then there would be no element of shock, but people have been mislead. So I think somewhere along the line someone has to take responsibility. What is so bad about wanting to get a decent outcome for the people who have lived in that park for such a long time? We are moving people on all the time, eventually they ran out of somewhere to be moved on to and we just create greater pockets of homelessness, greater housing stress. It could be argued that people shouldn’t have to live in caravan parks, but the fact is that they are already there and people have lived in them for a long time. Developers are going to make a bucket load of money and at huge cost to these people, this doesn’t seem right” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). 5.6 SUMMARY

This chapter has discussed the implications associated with the closure of caravan parks. These can be devastating for residents not only in economic terms as a source of affordable housing; but also to their employment opportunities, support and social networks, lifestyle and health. The sudden and substantial loss of this form of low cost accommodation creates a crisis for caravan park residents who often have difficulty in obtaining alternative rental. It also places pressure on other households in the immediate locality who consequently are faced with a more competitive market. These effects are often compounded because they impact on resident groups who are vulnerable by virtue of their socio-economic characteristics and marginalised by their own form of housing (Greenhalgh and Connor 2003). This chapter also explained that the ‘right to housing’ ideology is not always manifested ‘on the ground’. Given the state of the housing market and the public housing scheme, the likelihood of former caravan park residents obtaining appropriate, affordable, alternative housing does not appear


69

promising and in many cases homelessness is a real possibility. Although it is understandable and permissible that developers get the ‘best bang for their buck’, there is a clear need for existing legislation to be revised so the consequential and substantial loss of accommodation and lifestyle for displaced caravan park residents is addressed. The anticipated future of caravan parks and suggestions for policy change will be provided in Chapter 6.


70

CHAPTER SIX:

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

The closure of caravan parks is an issue which needs to be addressed by Australian social and housing policy makers, as existing social and environmental planning policy is currently insufficient. Substantial and detailed recommendations for future change and improvement are not being drafted by government. This chapter draws upon the findings of this thesis and provides a prediction on the future of residential caravan parks. A set of recommendations addressing ways to minimise the problems associated with inevitable closure are included. In order to ensure this important form of low-cost housing is retained or that those displaced as a result of closure are compensated, it is imperative that government considers a change to existing legislation. 6.1 THE FUTURE OF URBAN CARAVAN PARKS

Destined for Closure

Based on the existing and new data analysed as part of the research process for this thesis, it is reasonable to assume that caravan parks have a very limited future in Australian capital cities. This is attributable to a number of factors (which were presented in Chapter Four), including the age of many parks and their limited capacity for revenue generation when compared with alternative land uses. Caravan parks located in urban areas are simply not a viable land use, particularly those away from the coast with no active tourist base. As caravan parks are closed in order to make way for new development, it is important that the consequences are considered and that adequate measures are taken to ensure that the impact to existing residents is minimised.

In order to assess the existing and future extent of the number of households affected by this trend, it is critical to ascertain the extent of the caravan park population. As explained in the opening chapters of this thesis, existing data collection methods pertaining to the number and capacity of caravan parks are deficient at both a national and state level. To accurately establish the extent to which people are seeking permanent accommodation in caravan parks, a revision of ABS data collection methods is urgently required. The ABS needs to ensure all caravan parks, regardless of their capacity, are

Chapter Six: Future Considerations

71

included in the next Census count in 2011. All households in all parks need to be included in the count, regardless of dwelling type (for example traditional caravan, mobile home or manufactured home). State government housing departments also need to revise their database information in order to ascertain the extent of caravan park living and the role parks have in the housing system. This would allow the federal and state governments to be better equipped to meet residents’ needs (Wensing et al. 2003). This is particularly important given the current vulnerability of existing caravan parks. Alternatives to Closure There have been a small number of cases in Australia and internationally which indicate that in exceptional circumstances caravan parks may have longevity. In Ballina on the far-north coast of NSW an entire caravan park community was relocated to another parcel of land in 2002. The park owner, local government, and the developer worked together to move Tinkerbell Caravan Park one kilometre away to a new park operated by the same owner. Residents were given the option of either moving to the new park or finding alternate accommodation. Regardless, the developer provided up-front relocation costs to all existing residents and purchased the dwellings of exiting owners (PAVS 2002). This arrangement provided a benchmark for caravan park closures and demonstrated a commitment by different organisations to work together. In particular, the goodwill shown by the park owner and developer in providing compensation beyond the expectation of the Residential Park Act, resulted in immediate relief for residents and most likely prevented a legal battle (PAVS 2002). Another unique solution to the caravan park dilemma involves the setting up of a cooperative whereby residents purchase the park from the existing owner. There have been examples in the USA where residents have been granted a loan enabling them to manage the park themselves and this approach is currently being investigated by Gosford City Council. The Equilibrium Community Ecology Incorporated (ECEI) has suggested that international examples have demonstrated that “tenants have successfully bough out a caravan park using this approach, providing themselves with self-funded and self-managed affordable accommodation” (ECEI 2004, 12). Similarly, ‘community title’ in caravan parks continues to be a successful arrangement in two caravan parks in non-metropolitan NSW. The parks are conventionally subdivided into individual lots, with a 'common property' lot which provides all site owners with partial ownership of communal facilities (Kadziela 2005). The cooperative and ‘community title’ approach is less viable given the financial limitations of many residents, however John Mackenzie from PAVS believes that it does provide a sound solution despite


72

its financial constraints. “One of the problems with community title is the community may want to displace some residents who are there, so there could potentially be a situation where resident is pitching against resident. Some issues with community title such as minimum site allotment size haven’t been worked out. It just means there needs to be yet another set of legislation. I think the best solution is cooperative ownership of parks, but finding the funding for that is going to be hard. They have worked out ways in America to do that, but if the government or Department of Housing get involved in Australia we have to consider - is it really the best way for them to use their resources?” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). The reality is that there is no ‘magic’ or immediate solution to the situation, but rather what is required is a strong strategic vision. Notwithstanding the success of the above models, in reality they are most likely not applicable to the capital city context for the reasons outlined. However, the models are instructive and demonstrate how the assumed impacts associated with the closure of caravan parks can be avoided in unique circumstances and how government can use aspects of them to develop innovative policy. 6.2 THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Although people living in caravan parks in Australia represent an extreme minority group, it is unacceptable that, despite heighten awareness of the situation, governments seem to be turning a blind eye to the situation. “When all the politics are out of it and all the arguments are settled there is still one question – where are the people going to go? They keep passing the buck, no one can answer it” (Burton 2006, pers. comm.). Current governments have been forced to manage a situation that could have been prevented 20 years ago, however this does not mean they are free of responsibility. “If you could start again in an ideal situation then you would have obviously done it in a different way…but the fact is they are already there…somewhere along the line someone has to take responsibility” (Mackenzie 2006, pers. comm.). If there is any hope of minimising the effects of park closure, particularly on disadvantaged residents, a combined response from the three tiers of governments, caravan park stakeholders and social researchers is required. Following are a set of recommendations which have been developed to alleviate the impact of the loss of low-cost housing stock and to compensate displaced residents for this loss:


73

National Government Level

As almost one-quarter of caravan park residents are aged over 65 (ABS 2001), the 12-year waiting list for public housing (discussed in Chapter Three) is an unrealistic option. “An emerging situation of rising vacancies in high-rent stock and chronic shortages at the low-rent end, signals powerful failures in the housing system” (Berry 2005, 15). It is acknowledged that the provision of affordable housing cannot be left to market forces and that a greater level of public rental housing is required to meet the growing need. If it is not economically viable to operate sources of low-cost housing such as caravan parks, the government must intervene. However, it is also recognised that this is not a simple task as further provision of public housing depends on political decisions and the subsequent allocation of funding and resources. Correspondingly, there is also a need for more private investment in affordable housing. Developers tend to concentrate on the provision of new rental accommodation at the high end of the market for obvious reasons, and generally do not provide an abundance of low cost rental housing unless they are required to do so by the consent authority (Berry 2005; Wensing et al. 2003). There is therefore a need for greater commitment and leverage from consent authorities and developers that all new residential developments provide a sufficient proportion of low-cost housing. It is suggested that if a development proposal involves the closure of a caravan park for residential development, the developer should provide at least 30 percent of the new housing to be available as ‘affordable’ rental accommodation. “If Australia in the future wants to avoid the spectre of tens of thousands of older people being stuck in a marginal housing situation with the ever-present possibility of secondary or primary homelessness, it is essential that the virtual freeze on the building of (public) housing be rethought. If social housing is deemed not to be a viable route then the level of CRA has to increase and take cognisance of regional variations in housing costs. A society which is characterised by social justice requires all sections of the citizenry, young and old, employed and not employed, are able to access adequate, affordable accommodation” (Morris et al 2005, 9). As an option to alleviate the lack of extending the availability of public housing to caravan park residents it is suggested that displaced residents are provided with priority access to public housing. This route should only be available to those residents who are at real risk of homelessness (based on a means and assets assessment) or those whose income does not allow access to private rental opportunities in the locality.


74

State Government Level (NSW) 1. Caravan Park Applications as Designated Development

As caravan parks provide a valuable form of low cost accommodation, NSW and indeed Australia has to expect greater demands on public housing, other government funded housing assistance schemes and community social service providers. This is unless they prevent a further decline in this source of affordable housing (PAVS 2004). The current approach of dealing with each closure on a case-by-case basis is unsatisfactory as it is no longer practical to assess the closure of a caravan park and the subsequent application for redevelopment in isolation. As it is unlikely that local government can accurately calculate the cumulative social impact of this type of development, it is recommended that caravan parks are included in ‘Schedule 3’ of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation

2000, which currently lists the classifications of development which require Ministerial determination. While it is not a complete solution, this amendment could be implemented relatively quickly and may result in greater levels of compensation for residents involuntarily exiting caravan parks. 2. Amendment of the Residential Parks Act 1998 and Amendment of SEPP 10

One possible action to be considered by state governments (in this case NSW) is the revision and amendment of existing policy to address the changes in the caravan park industry. It is considered that amendment to the Residential Parks Act and SEPP 10 could be carried out simultaneously, as this would facilitate improved provision of compensation to displaced residents, as well as ensuring the retention of low-cost housing. As explained in the preceding chapters of this thesis, the Residential Parks Act is not an appropriate vehicle to alleviate the significant social and economic impacts incurred by resident when caravan parks are closed. When it was instituted, the Carr Government claimed “the Bill aims to support this (caravan park) lifestyle and to assist in confirming it as a viable housing option for potential and existing residents…directed towards giving the industry a solid foundation for future investment and expansion” (NSW Legislative Assembly 1998, 9172). However the legislation has been unsuccessful because the industry has changed so significantly since its inception. “The applicable legislation is, once again, unable to keep pace with an industry that is used to getting its way…market providers are allowed to dictate their response to the provision of low-income housing.” (Mackenzie 2003, 18).


75

As a bare minimum the compensation provisions of the Residential Parks Act need to be amended to provide for the successful and equitable relocation of residents. The amendments should also ensure that all residents (owners and renters) who have lived in a caravan park for a designated period of time have their relocation costs covered in full. The applicable length of residency would be determined as part of the amendment, but should be in vicinity of 12 months. In order to ensure rightful compensation is provided to dwelling owners, further changes could include the requirement that all existing mobile and manufactured homes be independently valued prior to being relocated (and potentially damaged). To complement the changes to the Residential Parks Act, it is proposed to amend SEPP 10 so that consideration is given to the loss of housing stock as well as the potential social impact. The coverage of SEPP 10 should be expanded to include all dwelling types in caravan parks. The Policy currently applies specifically to boarding houses, hostels and residential flat buildings containing low-cost rental dwellings and aims to provide a mechanism for the retention of that form of accommodation. It provides that concurrence is required with the Director General of the NSW Department of Planning to demolish, alter or change the use of buildings providing low-cost accommodation; and that prior to consent being issued it must be demonstrated that there is an availability of comparable accommodation in the locality. It is suggested that as an alternative to the gazettal of a new SEPP for caravan park closures (to be discussed later) this Policy be amended so that any reference made to “low-rental, residential building” in SEPP 10 is changed to ‘low-rental, long-term residential accommodation’. Below (shown in bold) are two examples of changes to SEPP 10.

3A Low-rental, residential accommodation

(1) In this Policy, low-rental residential accommodation means the following:

(a) a boarding-house,

(b) a hostel,

(c) a residential flat building containing a low-rental dwelling, (d) any permanent, or semi-permanent form of mobile accommodation located within an

existing caravan park which has been occupied by the same individual or individuals for a period of 12 months or longer.


76

While it is considered that the inclusion of caravan park-based dwellings in SEPP 10 will provide greater assurance that the level of low-cost housing in a locality is maintained, it is not a long-term solution but should provide mitigation for residents who face eviction in the immediate future. 3. The Gazettal of New State Planning Instruments

While an amendment to the Residential Parks Act and SEPP 10 would, to a degree, alleviate compensation and low-cost housing issues in the short-term, there is room for improvement. The strategic vision at all government levels should be to introduce a state-wide environmental planning instrument which ensures the protection of displaced residents and housing stock beyond that which is currently provided. Therefore, in NSW there needs to be a new SEPP addressing caravan park closures, which should aim to achieve the following:

The retention of caravan parks in areas where they provide a significant amount of low-cost housing. This could be achieved by restricting the change of use and/or rezoning of land.

The retention of low-cost housing by the adoption of a similar approach to SEPP 10, whereby every low-cost housing unit lost must be replaced by similarly priced accommodation in the locality or through a monetary contribution by the developer. This would only be required in localities where there is a shortage of comparable accommodation

Provision of compensation relating to the relocation of home owners and tenants. Existing mobile and manufactured homes should be independently valued prior to relocation to ensure rightful compensation to their owners; and all relocation costs should be payable for all residents.

It is almost impossible to mitigate the social loss incurred by residents when a caravan park closes or to adequately compensate for the resultant breakdown of an intrinsic community. This situation is a natural progression and is not isolated to the relocation of caravan park residents. However, to lessen the impact of other changes such as the loss of professional and employment networks, policy could include a requirement for park owners to provide compensation to residents who are forced to relocate to other localities. One example is the reimbursement of travel expenses (say for a three month period) to medical facilities, allowing time for them to source alternative care in their new area.


77

Local Government Level

Through the devolution of authority, local governments are responsible for the practical application of legislation and it is their responsibility to ensure the maintenance of minimum standards in caravan parks. Stubbs (2006a) has suggested that caravan park owners deliberately allow their business to become dilapidated so that they have a stronger argument for redevelopment. This makes for a very unpleasant living environment for park residents. There is a need for greater accountability at a local government level to ensure the health and safety standards of all caravan parks are maintained in accordance with the Residential Parks Act 1998 (or similar), for the life of their operation. “Local councils need to regularly visit parks which are closing and ensure that proper public health and service standards are maintained until the last resident leaves” (Connor and Ferns 2002, 25). Councils are generally not aware of how poorly residents fare under the Residential Parks Act when parks close. Stubbs (2006b) explained that council staff often incorrectly assume that the existing legislation is a comprehensive solution for displacement. For this reason, in order to ensure determinations are unbiased and adequately assessed, councils should commission independent social impact statements. Councils could also respond by amending their statutory planning instruments to prevent the closure of caravan parks within the LGA, or at least to minimise the resultant impacts. In situations where state legislation is insufficient they could respond locally by prohibiting park owners from accepting new patrons from the date an application for redevelopment is lodged. Gosford City Council in an example of a local government which has made policy changes. The local government area accommodates a large number of caravan parks which are occupied by a combination of tourists and permanent residents. Due to increases in property values in the late 1990s, there has been considerable pressure on park owners to redevelop their parks for more lucrative uses. Consequently, Council has prepared a Draft Local Environmental Plan and Interim Development Order to protect certain caravan parks and camping grounds from redevelopment. These require the council in assessment of development applications for change of use or redevelopment, to take into account whether the proposal is likely to reduce the availability of low-cost accommodation on the site and in the region.


78

6.3 THE ROLE OF OTHER INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS

Caravan Park Owners

In order to protect the future amenity of residents, park owners should be educated, possibly by local government, of their moral obligation. Ideally they should make existing, potential and new patrons aware of any proposed redevelopment to ensure they have adequate notice to make alternative accommodation arrangements. Councils should also encourage park operators to become educated on the implications of redevelopment of caravan parks. For example, the provision of notice boards in common areas showing available rental properties, boarding houses or community services offices in the locality would be particularly valuable for elderly and disabled residents who are limited in terms of transport. Caravan Park Residents

Sadly, many caravan park residents are powerless legally, financially and intellectually when it comes to preventing the loss of their home. The law provides that as they are tenants they are at the mercy of the landowner. Nevertheless, they do have statutory rights and they should make it their duty to be aware of them. If possible, residents should become actively involved in advocating their case to the relevant consent authority and other government agencies such as the Department of Housing. Researchers

To ensure governments are provided with reliable information which can be used to develop progressive, innovative policy, researchers must continue to provide up-to-date information on the nature of caravan parks and the number of residents living permanently in them. Specific areas for further research are identified in Chapter Seven. 6.4 SUMMARY

Based on the research compiled and analysed in this thesis, this chapter has provided a set of recommendations relating to the closure of caravan parks in Australia and specifically in NSW. The aim of the recommendations are to protect permanent caravan park residents and to ensure the retention of this form of low cost housing. There is a need for a well-coordinated, comprehensive approach by the three tiers of Australian government, park owners and residents and industry analysts


79

in order to achieve this. It is particularly important to increase investment in public housing to meet shortfalls in the private market; and to introduce new policy which ensures adequate compensation is provided to displaced caravan park residents, regardless of their tenancy status. While changes to existing policy will not guarantee the future of urban caravan parks, it will force land owners to assume a level of social responsibility which has previously been lawfully avoided. As the concluding chapter, Chapter Seven will revisit the themes covered in the thesis.


80

CHAPTER SEVEN:

CONCLUSION

The final component of this thesis summarises the research background, findings and recommendations of the previous six chapters. To ensure the original aims of the thesis have been comprehensively addressed, particular reference is made to the research statement and objectives provided in Chapter One. Finally, based on the findings of this study, suggestions for future research and gaps in existing discourse have been identified. 7.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW

This thesis discusses the advent, rise and recent demise of caravan parks in urban areas in Australia. The acknowledgement by the ABS 20 years ago that caravan parks were a legitimate housing option highlighted the existence of a small but significant proportion of the Australian population which had existed since the mid-1900s (Hogarth et al. 1994). In recent years, caravan parks in urban areas have become increasingly vulnerable to redevelopment pressures and in 2006 although they are acknowledged in discussions of housing stock, they remain an under-recognised yet integral component of a the urban housing landscape, both in Australia and overseas. The closure of caravan parks to make way for more profitable land uses is concerning for various reasons. From a social perspective, the impact falls harshly upon some of the most disadvantaged people in society and in most cases the loss of housing and community is not remedied (Stubbs 2006). It has also been observed that the effects from the loss of the parks raise broader planning issues in relation to the local economy. In particular, the reduction of affordable accommodation places significant upward pressure on the local housing market and has the potential to adversely affect labour mobility. A combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches was used for the research process. The main component was a comprehensive analysis of past and present literature, statistical information and legislation. Following this, investigation was undertaken to determine the viability of urban caravan parks, with Sydney being the focus of the study. This process involved the retrieval of public records

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

81

relating to five separate caravan parks which have ceased operation in the metropolitan area since 2001, and an analysis of the factors which lead to their closure. To supplement and add gravity to the findings, two in-depth interviews were carried out. John Mackenzie, Coordinator of PAVS, provided an informed and reputable opinion, developed from significant experience in the caravan park industry and social welfare sector. Rhonda Burton, a caravan park van owner for over 10 years, offered a unique perspective into the intricate emotions of a vulnerable resident faced with the loss of the physical home as well as the familiar community. Rhonda introduced a valuable human perspective to the research. 7.2 RESEARCH OUTCOMES The research sought to address the following research statement: If market forces are relied upon, urban caravan parks will not have a future in the city landscape. However, as they provide a valuable source of permanent housing at the lower end of the market, the situation needs to be addressed and government policy implemented to ensure that adverse implications for existing long-term residents are minimised. In order to research the above, it was necessary to answer the following questions:

What is the current role of caravan parks in the urban housing market and how does this differ from the intended role?

What factors have influenced the use of caravan parks for permanent residency?

What is the extent of caravan park closure in Australia generally and more specifically Sydney?

What are the economic and social implications of caravan park closure?

What is the future of urban caravan parks? How can government policy assist in compensating for the loss of this form of low-cost housing?

The research and findings of this thesis are demonstrated in the following discussion The Housing Role of Caravan Parks

Chapter Two explained how the role of the caravan park has diversified from its intended use as a form of budget tourist accommodation to a supplement to traditional housing. The inadequacies of data collection methods make it difficult to determine the extent of the population’s reliance on caravan


82

parks as a permanent form of accommodation, however it is evident that this sector of the population is not accurately accounted for and greater acknowledgement is required of its existence. The demographic profile of park residents indicates that there are typically high levels of disadvantage by way of income level, age and education. However, the majority of people who reside in caravan parks are content with their housing experience, as the social support structure mitigates problems of isolation and loneliness which may exist in more conventional housing forms. The Factors Influencing the use of Caravan Parks for Permanent Residency

The reliance on caravan parks by a small but significant proportion of the Australian population is the result of several factors, which were discussed in Chapter Three. These include lack of strategic planning; failure of the property market to provide for all income levels; and a disproportionate variation in land prices and income distribution. The inadequate supply of affordable housing is having a particular impact on the lower end of the private rental market where the supply is not catering for the chronic excess in demand. These factors have not been offset by adequate government intervention such as the provision of public housing and rent assistance; while other forms of low-cost accommodation such as boarding houses are also in short supply. In reality, caravan parks are not an ideal alternative to low-cost housing as they have been proven to be a very unprofitable investment. Housing that is comparatively cheap does not necessarily make it easier for low-income households to access and, in the case of caravans and mobile homes, there is the potential to leave residents in an undesirable financial position when they are forced to relocate due to redevelopment. The Extent of Caravan Park Closure

Despite affordable housing being in short supply in Australia, the low-cost accommodation provided by caravan parks is rapidly disappearing. Chapter Four demonstrated that since 2001 there has been a notable reduction in the number of caravan parks in all states and territories. This is thought to be the combined result of a surge in land prices and the fact the ‘life cycle’ of many caravan parks is coming to an end. As many parks were established by entrepreneurs over 40 years ago with the intent to make a profit once the land became more valuable, they are now ripe for redevelopment and provide a tempting opportunity to maximise profit. In Sydney alone, five applications for redevelopment were received in relatively quick and unprecedented succession between 2001 and 2005 and each of them was accommodating permanent residents at the time.


83

The Economic and Social Implications of Caravan Park Closure

The implications associated with the closure of caravan parks were discussed in Chapter Six. The necessity to relocate can be devastating for caravan park residents not only in economic terms as a source of affordable housing; but also to their employment opportunities, support and social networks, lifestyle and health. The sudden and substantial loss of their accommodation creates a crisis for caravan park residents who often have difficulty in obtaining alternative rental. It also places pressure on other households in the immediate locality who consequently are faced with a more competitive market. These effects are sometimes compounded because they impact resident groups who are vulnerable by virtue of their socio-economic characteristics and marginalised by their own form of housing (Greenhalgh and Connor 2003). It was explained that the perception that all Australians have a ‘right to housing’ is not always manifested ‘on the ground’. The state of the housing market and the public housing system means the likelihood of former caravan park residents obtaining appropriate, affordable, alternative housing does not appear promising and in many cases homelessness is a real possibility. Although it is understandable and permissible that developers receive the ‘best bang for their buck’, there is a clear need for existing legislation to be revised so the consequential and substantial loss of accommodation and lifestyle for displaced caravan park residents is addressed. Changes to Local and State Government Policy Pertaining to Caravan Parks

Based on the research compiled and analysed in this thesis, Chapter Six was dedicated to providing a set of recommendations relating to the closure of caravan parks in Australia, and specifically in NSW. The aim of the recommendations is to protect and provide for the future housing needs of permanent caravan park residents. In order to achieve this, there is a need for a well-coordinated, comprehensive approach by the three tiers of Australian government, park owners and residents and industry analysts. It is particularly important to increase investment in public housing to meet shortfalls in the private market; and to introduce new policy which ensures adequate compensation is provided to displaced caravan park residents, regardless of their tenancy status. While changes to existing policy will not guarantee the future of urban caravan parks, it will force land owners to assume a level of social responsibility which has previously been lawfully avoided.


84

7.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Given the vulnerability and significant changes in the industry, it is surprising that a greater amount of research has not been undertaken to identify the extent and implications of the impending demise of urban caravan parks. While a number of researchers (in particular Wensing et al. 2003; Greenhalgh and Connor 2003; Connor and Ferns 2002; and Greenhalgh 2002) have made valuable contributions, the following areas are identified for further study:

Existing research fails to provide sufficient and specific detail on the reasons why caravan parks in Sydney and other Australian cities are no longer viable. This is an area which needs to be explored if there is any intention to protect existing stock and to identify those caravan park which are unique in terms of location and revenue earning capacity.

Longitudinal studies need to be undertaken to record the subsequent place of residence of people who involuntarily exit caravan parks. Currently there is very little information available which identifies whether residents move into the private rental market, public housing, aged care facilities, or become homeless.

The extent of support networks in caravan parks and whether or not they really provide an alternative level of care to that provided by local social services needs to be investigated. In-depth interviews with park residents would ascertain the extent of individual reliance on fellow residents for example, child care and assistance with the elderly and disabled. This could then be compared to the capacity of services provided in the local government area.

There appears to be no comparison study of caravan parks in Australia’s eight capital cities. The results from such a study would identify national similarities and highlight the need for governmental response in areas such as the provision of public housing and mitigation measures for displaced residents.

7.4 FINAL REMARKS

In many ways caravan parks can be likened to a microcosm of society. Within each establishment there exists a community with different socio-economic levels and a range of dwelling types, from modern manufactured homes with multiple rooms, to the traditional caravan with no structural grounding and in many cases no amenities. There is no doubt caravan parks make a unique


85

contribution to the urban landscape - both in terms of a housing resource and by provision of support networks for the elderly, disabled, mentally ill and sole parents. The demise of the industry represents a permanent loss of low-cost housing. This thesis has identified the vulnerability of Australia’s caravan parks, particularly those in capital cities. There is no clear-cut solution to this urban process, as the problem has its roots in almost all corners of the development framework, from decision making in the past, to market forces, government regulation, legislative inflexibility and the attitude of land owners. While it could be argued that caravan park residents represent a small portion of the community and the focus of government funding and policy can be better directed, they are amongst the most vulnerable individuals in this country and the government must assume responsibility for their welfare.


86

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, Tourist accommodation, Catalogue No.8635.0, Australian Bureau

of Statistics, Canberra, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001a, Counting the homeless, Catalogue No.2050.0, Australian Bureau

of Statistics, Canberra, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001b, Population and housing fact sheet, Australian Bureau of

Statistics, Canberra, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001c, Housing occupancy and costs, Catalogue No.4130.0 Australian

Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2000, Australian social trends, Catalogue No.4102.0 – Confidentialised

Unit Record File, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Australia. Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) 2002, Public and community housing: a rescue

package needed, ACOSS, media release No. 323, 20 October 2002. Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 1994, National Action Plan on

Human Rights, 1996-1997 revision, Canberra, Australia. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2005, Australian Government, viewed 19 August 2006,

<http://www.aihw.gov.au>. Australian Property Monitors 2006, ‘Upswing in national house prices including Sydney’, Media

Release, Australian Property Monitors, viewed 3 October 2006, <http:// homepriceguide.com. au>.

Beckwith, J 1998, ‘The role of caravan parks in meeting the housing needs of the aged’, Urban Policy

and Research, Vol. 16, Vo. 2, pp.131-137.

Bibliography

87

http://www.aihw.gov.au/

Beer, A 2004, ‘Housing affordability and the planning system in Australia’, unpublished paper presented

at the Housing Studies Association Spring Conference, Belfast, UK. Berry, M 2005, ‘Show me the money: financing more affordable housing, Just Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 13-

19. Berry, M 2003, ‘Why is it important to boost the supply of affordable housing in Australia – and how can

we do it?’, Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 413-435. Berry, M and Dalton, T 2004, ‘Housing prices and policy dilemmas: a peculiarly Australian problem?’

Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 69-92. Berry, M and Hall, J 2001, ‘Policy options for stimulating private sector investment in affordable housing

in Australia: stage 1 report, outlining the need for action’, Affordable Housing National Research Consortium, Sydney, Australia.

Berry, M and Hall, J 2002, New approaches to expanding the supply of affordable housing in Australia:

an increasing role for the private sector, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, RMIT Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Bishop, D 1978 ‘Valuation of privately owned caravan parks’, The Valuer, January 1978, pp. 55-58. Boer, B W 1978, ‘From caravans to mobile homes’, The Monash Law Review, Vol. 4, June 1978, pp.

267-291. Bostock, L 2001, ‘Housing risk among caravan park residents, Parity, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 6-8. Bowden, R 1980, ‘Equilibrium and disequilibrium in models of the housing market: a survey’, Housing

Economics, Australian Government Public Service, Canberra, Australia. Burnley, I and Forrest, J (eds) 1985, Living in cities urbanism and society in metropolitan Australia,

Allen and Unwin, Sydney, Australia.

Bibliography

88

Burnswoods, J 2001, ‘Residential Park’, NSW Legislative Council, Transcript of Hansard dated

28/02/2001, article No. 8, p. 11990. Burton, R Resident Spokesperson for Casa Paloma Caravan Park 2006, key informant interview by

author, Sydney, Australia, 3 October 2006. Cardew, R 1985, ‘Have we been operating under the wrong paradigm? A reinterpretation of urban

residential land markets’, in Burnley, I and Forrest, J (eds) 1985, Living in cities urbanism

and society in metropolitan Australia, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, Australia. Caulfield, J 2000, ‘Public housing and intergovernmental reform in the 1990s’, Australian Journal of

Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 99-110. Chamberlain C and Mackenzie D 1992, ‘Understanding contemporary homelessness: issues of

definition and meaning’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 274-297. Chesters, J 2005, ‘Deinstitutionalisation: an unrealised desire, Health Sociology Review, Vol.14, No.3,

pp.272 – 282. Connor, J 2004, ‘Home among the gum trees: securing the future for older people who live in

residential parks in NSW’, a report prepared for the NSW Ministerial Advisory Committee on Ageing by Park and Village Service NSW, Sydney, Australia.

Connor, J and Ferns, S 2002, ‘No place for home: the loss of permanent accommodation on NSW

residential parks 2002’, Park and Village Service NSW, Combined Pensioners and Superannuants NSW Inc. Shelter NSW and I.B. Fell Housing Research Centre University of Sydney, Department of Fair Trading NSW, Sydney, Australia.

Dotzour, M, Grissom, T, Liu, C and Pearson, T 1990, ‘Highest and best use: the evolving paradigm’,

The Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 17-32.

Bibliography

89

The Economist 2003 (author unknown), ‘House of cards’ viewed 6 September 2006, <http://www.economist.com /surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1794873>.

Equilibrium Community Ecology Incorporated 2004, Affordable housing through cooperative ownership:

an option for Gosford City Council’s affordable housing strategy, Equilibrium Community Ecology Incorporated, Umina, Australia.

Evans, A W 2004, Economics and land use planning, Blackwell Publishing, London, UK. Family Action Centre 2003, ‘National policy statement on the role of residential parks in the Australian

housing system 2003’, Insite Newsletter, Vol. 25, pp. 1-5. Fogleson, R E 1986, Planning the capitalist city, Princetown University Press, USA. Forell, S, McCarron, E and Schetzer, L 2005, ‘No home, no justice? The legal needs of homeless

people in NSW’, a summary report for the Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Gosford City Council 2006, viewed September 29 2006, <www.gosford.nsw.gov.au>. Gleeson, B and Low, N 2000, Australian urban planning: new challenges, new agendas, Allen and

Unwin, St. Leonards, Australia. Granger, M 1997, ‘A housing alternative: social and environmental implications’, The Building

Economist, September 1977, pp. 63-70. Greenhalgh, E 2002, ‘Caravan park closures: losing affordable housing or increasing homelessness?’,

Parity, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 18-19. Greenhalgh, E Anderson, J and Minnery J 2001, ‘Caravan park supple in south east Queensland:

implications for residents, community and government’, a report prepared by the Queensland Department of Housing, Brisbane, Australia.

Bibliography

90

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1794873

http://www.gosford.nsw.gov.au/

Greenhalgh, E and Connor, J 2003, ‘No place for home: Residential park decline and older people’, paper presented at the 3rd National Homeless Conference by the Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations, Brisbane, 6-8 April 2003.

Hallett, G 1979, Urban Land Economics, Macmillan, London, UK. Hartman, C 1998, ‘The case for right to housing’, Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 223-246. Harvey, J and Jowsey, E 2000, Urban Land Economics, 5th edn, Macmillan Press Ltd, London, UK. Harvie, M 2003, Social impact assessment for the redevelopment of the Silver Beach Caravan Park

site, GHD Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia. Heikkila, J 2000, The Economics of Planning, Centre for Urban Policy Research, New Jersey, USA. Herron, K 1985, ‘Caravan parks/motels – future limitations’, The Valuer, Vol. 11, pp. 727-730. Hogarth, D, Geggie, J, and Eddy, G 1994, ‘When home is a caravan park’, Children Australia, Vol. 19,

No. 3, pp. 4-8. Horin, A 2004, ‘No place like home, The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August, page unknown. Joint Committee on Parks for Mobile Homes and Caravan Parks (Maher Report) 1979, joint volume of

papers presented to the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, No. 313A, 1978-79. Jopson, D 2006, ‘Park residents dread loss of community’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 August, p.

8. Kadziela, M 2005, ‘Investigating a title system for caravan parks and manufactured home estates,

School of Surveying and Spatial Information Systems research project, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

King, P 2003, A social philosophy of housing, Ashgate, Vermont, USA.

Bibliography

91

Law and Legislation Australia 2006, Canberra, Australia, viewed August 28 2006, <www. legislation.

gov.au> Little, I 1973, A Critique of welfare economics, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, London, UK. Mackenzie, J Coordinator Parks and Village Service 2006, key informant interview by author, Sydney,

NSW, 26 September 2006. Mackenzie, J 2003, ‘Lifestyles of the not so rich and famous: the use of caravan parks in NSW as a

housing option from 1970-2000’, an unpublished paper prepared for the Parks and Village Service, Sydney, Australia.

Maher, M J 1979 (see Joint Committee on Parks for Mobile Homes and Caravan Parks). Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd 2005, ‘Amended statement of environmental effects: 64 Hume Highway,

Lansvale’, Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia Pain, J 2004, ‘Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council’, NSW Land and Environment Court

hearing file no. 11478 of 2003, Sydney, Australia. Miers, R 2004, ‘The role of residential parks as a source of affordable housing’, Bachelor of Planning

Thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Morris, A, Judd, B and Kavanagh, K 2005, ‘Marginality amidst plenty: pathways into homelessness for

older Australians’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 241-251. Mowbray, M 1993, Transforming the great Australian dream: the quarter vs the 30th of an acre block,

Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Mowbray, M and Stubbs, J 1996, ‘Manufactured home estates: extending housing options or

benchmarking cities?’, Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 138-140.

Bibliography

92

Mowbray, R 2006, Private rental: can it deliver affordable housing to low income tenants? Issues

Paper, Shelter NSW, Sydney, Australia. National Housing Strategy 1991, The affordability of Australian Housing, Issues Paper No.2, Australian

Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia. National Housing Strategy 1992, Housing choice: reducing the barriers, Issues Paper No.6, Australian

Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia. New South Wales Department of Planning, 2003, The Residential Parks Act of New South Wale as

amended, Sydney, Australia. New South Wales Department of Planning, 1992, Planning Initiatives for Manufactured Home Estates,

Discussion Paper, Department of Planning, Sydney, Australia. New South Wales Legislative Assembly, 1998, ‘Residential parks bill second reading speech’, Hansard

Votes and Proceedings, 28 October 1998, Sydney, Australia. New South Wales Department of Planning, 2002, State Environmental Planning Policy No.70 as

amended– Affordable housing (revised schemes). New South Wales Parliament 1993, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 36 as amended –

Manufactured Homes Estates, New South Wales, Australia. New South Wales Parliament 1992, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 21 as amended –

Caravan Parks, New South Wales, Australia. New South Wales Parliament 1984, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 10 as amended –

Retention of low cost rental accommodation, New South Wales, Australia. Noble, B 1980, ‘Country caravan parks’, The Valuer, April 1980, pp. 146-149. O’Dwyer, E 2005, ‘No place like home’, The Sun Herald, 22 May, p. 78.

Bibliography

93

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2002, Economics of the park homes industry , The Office of the

Deputy Prime Minister, London, United Kingdom. Office of Fair Trading 2004, ‘Review of Residential Parks Act 1998’, a discussion paper for the office of

fair trading, AGPS, Canberra, Australia. O’Sullivan, A 2003, Urban economics, 5th edn, Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. Paris, C 1993, Housing Australia, MacMillan Education Australia, South Melbourne, Australia. Park and Village Service NSW 2005, Residential parks – permanent sites – losses / gains since

November 2001, Department of Fair Trading NSW, Sydney, Australia. Park and Village Service NSW 2002, ‘Knights of the round table’, Outasite, December, Department of

Fair Trading NSW, Sydney, Australia. Porter, G 2005, Proposed residential subdivision: 61-97 Hume Highway, Canley Vale, Court Appointed

Expert’s statement of evidence on social impact issues, Sydney, Australia. Powall, L and Withers, G 2004, ‘National Summit on Housing Affordability’, Resource paper, Canberra,

27-29 June 2004. Randolph, B and Holloway, D 2002, ‘The anatomy of housing stress in Sydney’, Urban Policy and

Research, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 329-355. Real Estate Institute of Australia 2006 ‘Real estate market facts, June quarter’, viewed 14 September

2006, < https://www.reiaustralia.com.au/market_reports/index.asp>. Reed, R and Greenhalgh, E 2003, ‘Caravan parks as a housing provider in the real estate market’, unpublished paper presented at the 27th Australia New Zealand Regional Science Association International Annual Conference in Fremantle, 28 September - 1 October 2003.

Bibliography

94

Russell, M 2006, ‘Battle of the beach as developers eye prized caravan park’, The Sunday Age, 8 January, p. 3

Secomb, D M 2000, ‘Retirement in mobile and manufactured housing on the North Coast of New South

Wales’, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Shelter South Australia 2004, ‘Caravan parks’, Shelter SA Snapshotz. Snapshot 3, Shelter South

Australia, Adelaide, Australia. Sidoti, C 1997, “Housing as a human right”, address at the National Conference on Homelessness,

Council of Homeless Persons, 4 September 1996. Smith, A 1960, The wealth of nations, Dent, London, United Kingdom. Stilwell, F J B 1993, Economic inequality: who gets what in Australia, Pluto Press, Sydney, Australia. Stuart, G, Silberberg, S and Hughes, L 2005, A snapshot of residents in eight lower hunter caravan

parks, Family Action Group, Newcastle, Australia. Stubbs, J 2006, ‘Social Impact Assessment - Berlyn Properties Pty Limited versus Liverpool City

Council and Lynette Goldsmith’, Statement of Evidence: Volume 1: proposed redevelopment of Casa Paloma caravan park.

Stubbs, J 2006a, presentation to the Liverpool City Council Independent Hearing and Assessment

Panel on behalf of the residents of Casa Paloma Caravan Park, 7 September 2006. Thompson, P 1999, ‘Alternative approaches to home ownership: the use of sweat equity’, Bachelor of

Town Planning thesis, UNSW, Sydney, Australia. Thompson, S M 2002, ‘Meanings of Home: Developing a Responsive and Humane Planning Practice’,

, Vol. 42, No.1, pp. 13-15. Plan Canada

Bibliography

95

Thompson, S M 2001, ‘Divorce and the home: no refuge’, University of New South Wales, viewed October 30 2006, <http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/media/2001/oct/divorce.html>.

Tsorbaris, D 2001, ‘Bringing caravan parks from the margins to the centre’, Parity, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 3. Valentine, G 2001, Social geographies: space and society, Prentice Hall, Essex, England. Volka, H 2001, ‘Reflections of a long time caravan park worker’, Parity, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 20-21. Wade, M 2006, ‘How the housing bust went west’, The Sydney Morning Herald, October 4, p. 15. Wallis, A D 1997, Wheel estate: the rise and decline of mobile homes, The John Hopkins University

Press, New York, USA. Webb, P 2005, ‘Housing affordability’, Real Estate Institute of New South Wales Journal, vol. 56, No.

7, pp. 4-9. Wensing, E Holloway, D and Wood, M 2003, On the margins? housing risk among caravan park

residents, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS Research Centre, Sydney, Australia.

Wilkinson, J 2005, Affordable housing in NSW: past to present, briefing paper no.14/05, a publication

for the NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, Sydney, Australia. Wilmoth, P 1998, ‘The fringe dwellers’, The Sunday Age, 26 December, p. 21. Yates, J, Wulff, M and Reynolds, M 2004, Changes in the supply of and need for low rent dwellings in

the private rental market, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS Research Centre, Sydney, Australia.

Bibliography

96

http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/media/2001/oct/divorce.html

A P P E N D I X A :

G L O S S A R Y

This thesis adopts the following definitions for the purpose of this research: Affordable Housing

The affordability of housing concerns the capacity of people to obtain sound housing while maintaining the ability to meet other basic costs of living and without sacrificing more than 30 percent of their combined household income on rent or mortgage repayments (Beer 2004; Berry and Hall 2002; Randolph and Holloway 2002). Caravan

A vehicle which is, or was originally, fitted with wheels and built to be capable of being towed by a motor vehicle, or is an immovable dwelling situated in a caravan park but does not include such a dwelling occupied in pursuance of a contract of employment. A caravan may include a temporary of fixed/rigid annex with or without amenities for independent living (Wensing et al. 2003). Caravan Park

Land on which structures that are not attached to land and that are designed to be able to be moved from one position to another, have been, or are to be placed. These structures may not just be limited to traditional caravans but can include relocatable homes, manufactured dwellings, cabins and other forms of short or long stay accommodation. The equivalent land use in the USA is a trailer park, while in the UK caravan parks are referred to as residential or mobile home parks (SEPP 21; Wensing et al. 2003). Comparable Accommodation

According to SEPP 10, accommodation is comparable when it is similar in terms of location because it is in the same or a neighbouring suburb; and it has equivalent access to similar services and facilities; and it has an equal or no more than five percent higher rental level with a similar standard of

Appendix A: Glossary

97

accommodation; and it is available for occupation at the date of lodgement of a development application. Deinstitutionalisation

Part of the mental illness reform movement of the 1960s and 1970s was the controversial closure of specialist mental hospitals and a move to community care (Chesters 2005). Economic Welfare

Economic welfare is a theory that is concerned with the welfare of individuals as opposed to that of society as one whole unit. It assumes that the individual is the basic unit of measurement and that welfare will be maximised when all markets in an economy are perfectly competitive (Evans 2004; Little 1973). Housing Stress

A household paying more than 30 percent of its total combined income on housing. Long Term Caravan Park Resident

A person who has occupied a site at a caravan park continuously for a period of two months or longer, and for whom this is his/her only or principle place of residence. Low Income Household

‘Low income’ households are those whose gross incomes fall within 50 to 80 percent of the median household income for the statistical division in which it is located, in accordance with the ABS. Similarly, ‘very low income’ households fall within less than 50 percent of the median household income for the statistical division in which it is located, in accordance with the ABS (ABS 2001c). Manufactured Housing

Self-contained dwellings often found in caravan parks that are manufactured off-site in sections and transported to a site for installation (NSW Department of Planning 1992).


98

Marginally Homeless

Those not officially categorised as homeless by the ABS and other agencies, but who reside in a caravan park seemingly through financial necessity or due to difficulty in accessing mainstream housing. The Market

Any arrangement by which buyers and sellers are brought together to fix a price at which goods can be exchanged (Harvey and Jowsey 2000). Mobile Home

A motorised home fitted or customised for use as a dwelling and capable of being registered as a motor vehicle (Wensing et al. 2003). Permanent Site

A designated piece of land in a caravan park occupied by a dwelling that is used as permanent accommodation. Public Housing

Housing owned by the government which is made available to low-income individuals and families for nominal rental rates or in some instances for no cost. Rental Stress

When a household must spend more than 30 percent of their income on rental payments they are said to be in rental stress. Right to Housing

A moral right associated with the legitimate interests held by an individual in relation to access to appropriate housing. This needs to be distinguished from housing rights, which relate to conditions granted by statute (King 2003).


99

Site

The individual portion of land allocated to a single moveable dwelling within a caravan park. Supported Accommodation Assistance Program

The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) is the national program assisting people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness through a range of support and supported accommodation services. State and Territory governments are responsible for the day to day administration of the program. Urban Any area that is located within, or that is characteristic of, a capital city.


100

A P P E N D I X B :

F A C U L T Y O F T H E B U I L T E N VI R O N M E N T H U M A N R ES E A R C H ET H I C S A D V I S O R Y P A N E L C O N S E N T

Appendix B: Faculty of the Built Environment Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel Consent

101


102


103


104

abstract - built environment | built environment · although they were developed on the fringe of...

Documents